A better approach is to use more of the points near the peak to improveaccuracy. A technique that applies this idea to transmission (S21)measurements of the Q of a cavityis described admirablybyLeong andMazierska [5]. Their method involves fitting a circle to complex S21values plotted on a Smith Chart, and removes the effects of cables, connectors,and mismatches to give an accurate determination of Q-factorsin the range 103–107. It is well-suited to precision metrology, in a setupwhere phase information is available.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/10/2015 04:22 pmFor those serious students of filters, there is only one reference: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6323867The Handbook of Filter Systhesis written in 1967 stands unchallenged as THE definitive reference; highpass, bandpass, lowpass and bandstop (notch). Chebychev, Gaussian, Bessel, Linear Phase, Elliptical functions; its all there. If Zverev were alive today, he would no doubt vigorously challenge 5 digit Qs, as I think we all should in non-optical systems.I cannot refute any claim, as I did not witness the test procedure...its simply a red flag based on my personal experience.In other words (please correct me if I'm wrong) in all your extensive professional experience you are not aware of IEEE or other organization's standard method for measuring and reporting loaded Q's. If that is correct, then this controversy could simply be a case of different researchers reporting Q measurements based on different standards.
For those serious students of filters, there is only one reference: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6323867The Handbook of Filter Systhesis written in 1967 stands unchallenged as THE definitive reference; highpass, bandpass, lowpass and bandstop (notch). Chebychev, Gaussian, Bessel, Linear Phase, Elliptical functions; its all there. If Zverev were alive today, he would no doubt vigorously challenge 5 digit Qs, as I think we all should in non-optical systems.I cannot refute any claim, as I did not witness the test procedure...its simply a red flag based on my personal experience.
Waskly Wabbit, you...very obvious you're thinking. I've skirted this also, but not as thoroughly. If this were true, why the different end plate diameters? These bad boys should also show force, but to my knowledge never have: http://www.eham.net/data/classifieds/images/332154.jpg
I think this is interesting:QuoteA better approach is to use more of the points near the peak to improveaccuracy. A technique that applies this idea to transmission (S21)measurements of the Q of a cavityis described admirablybyLeong andMazierska [5]. Their method involves fitting a circle to complex S21values plotted on a Smith Chart, and removes the effects of cables, connectors,and mismatches to give an accurate determination of Q-factorsin the range 103–107. It is well-suited to precision metrology, in a setupwhere phase information is available. From http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/639/1/robinsonmp1.pdf
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pmIt is exactly that. The mass at any time after you start the engine is (m - Ein/c^2). It is the mass you started with minus the mass you are using to accelerate. In your derivation, you hand wave this part by saying Ein, when in fact, there is no input to the system. Then you ignore where the energy is coming from by assuming that what comes out of the battery has negligible mass, then claim over unity by counting the energy gained from that expenditure as gravy. Paradox resolved, case closed. My job is not to convince you, but to make sure others don't buy into more of this paradox fantasy.ToddNo, the paradox is not at all "resolved". I honestly did my best to just stay out of this whole conversation, but there is no other way around it. I read through all your posts, none of them offer any resolution to this issue. I pray people reading this aren't taken in. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. First of all, energy conservation when the drive is on a ship that is accelerating is a red herring. It's been stated and shown so many times that I'm not going to bother to link it, but a COE paradox exists if the drive is just attached to a wheel and spun at a great enough velocity. No tangential acceleration. The energy source need not be attached to the wheel itself, so your expression for Eout doesn't hold. Even if what you posted previously worked, which it doesn't, you wouldn't have resolved the COE issue.Come back to the Newtonian version you posted here. This time, instead of assuming COE by equating Ein and Eout, let Ein=Pin*t. Now let k=F/Pin and solve for v. You can do this the hard way with integral of F/m(t), where m(t)=mo-Pin*t/c2 or do it the easy way by realizing you underestimate v (and consequently Eout) if you just set m(t)=mo (v=(Pin*k*t)/mo). Thus this simplification sets a lower Eout then in actuality, Go through that procedure as I just did with a k greater than 1/c. See if Ein<Eout for some v<c. QuoteParadox resolved, case closed. My job is not to convince you, but to make sure others don't buy into more of this paradox fantasy.Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
It is exactly that. The mass at any time after you start the engine is (m - Ein/c^2). It is the mass you started with minus the mass you are using to accelerate. In your derivation, you hand wave this part by saying Ein, when in fact, there is no input to the system. Then you ignore where the energy is coming from by assuming that what comes out of the battery has negligible mass, then claim over unity by counting the energy gained from that expenditure as gravy. Paradox resolved, case closed. My job is not to convince you, but to make sure others don't buy into more of this paradox fantasy.Todd
Paradox resolved, case closed. My job is not to convince you, but to make sure others don't buy into more of this paradox fantasy.
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!I'd have to work it out exactly, (and I probably won't have time) but the centrifugal "force" should distort the mode such as to limit the accelerating force available as a function of angular velocity. (Due to the taper of the cavity) So there is a very good chance that over-unity is just fantasy.
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
...
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 07:14 pmI'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here ) interface using monickers and not face to face. It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's. Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's. So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication. It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.Todd
Quote from: Rodal on 07/10/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 07:14 pmI'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here ) interface using monickers and not face to face. It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's. Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's. So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication. It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.Q is such a tough one and at least it came out there is no real standard. This is why I didn't post my Q, it's so open for debate and in the real world testing this device, it is, what it will be. (hopefully >2)Shell
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.ToddI would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied. Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.