Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:22 pm(...) But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.DIY EMers should view this short youtube vid: [youtube]I2k2g00onL0[/youtube]Basically, a 2,000 volt transformer then goes into a doubler making the necessary 4,000 volts for a run of the mill magnetron. This is lethal voltage along with the necessary amperage to assure it. Biggest word here is DO NOT use a DVM or analog meter to measure this voltage. Stay away from it. Be very afraid...there's a reason.
(...) But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/26/2015 08:36 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/26/2015 08:22 pmI think my point is being missed for the case of a completely static gas.I've seen people arguing for a net nonzero force even in this case.The reason for pointing this out is to make you think.Point well taken.It would be very useful to get strong skeptical reviews of Prof.Yang's paper ((translated) page 4 ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) concerning her equations stating that having a gas/fluid with charged particles inside the EM Drive results in transfer of its momentum to the EM Drive metallic body. Just like the great job you did addressing energy conservation.It seems to me that she also needs to take into account directional attenuation in order to get a non-zero Poynting vector.If you have a chance to look at her equations, I'll for one, would appreciate knowing what you think about them I tried. The formatting of the equations is execrable, but despite that and after reading all of it, and then realising that she was using Maxwell to produce evidence of an asymmetrical force, I knew the entire paper was wrong. The reason it's wrong is because group velocity is being conflated with phase velocity.
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/26/2015 08:22 pmI think my point is being missed for the case of a completely static gas.I've seen people arguing for a net nonzero force even in this case.The reason for pointing this out is to make you think.Point well taken.It would be very useful to get strong skeptical reviews of Prof.Yang's paper ((translated) page 4 ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) concerning her equations stating that having a gas/fluid with charged particles inside the EM Drive results in transfer of its momentum to the EM Drive metallic body. Just like the great job you did addressing energy conservation.It seems to me that she also needs to take into account directional attenuation in order to get a non-zero Poynting vector.If you have a chance to look at her equations, I'll for one, would appreciate knowing what you think about them
I think my point is being missed for the case of a completely static gas.I've seen people arguing for a net nonzero force even in this case.The reason for pointing this out is to make you think.
There are two ways to explain this new thrusters, (1) from the Plank’s hypothesis and Einstein’s quantum theory of light, also the theory of microwave to explain the thrust from the thrusters, that is to quantise the injected microwave to the sealed cavity into photons, its travelling speed is the group speed, photons and the thrust cavity wall elastic collision produce the net thrust, (2) From the classic theory of electrodynamics to explain how the thrust is produce by the thrusters, according to the kinetic energy and conservation of momentum of the electromagnetic system within its volume, Maxwell equation and electromagnetic flux density vector can found out the source of the thrust is coming from the integration of the electromagnetic tensor along the surface of the volume
Todd, have you had a chance to read Aquino's (*) paper ( https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document ) that I mentioned in my prior post ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380265#msg1380265 )?Remember that Shawyer analyzes the EM Drive cavity as two completely disjointed, discontinuous waveguides: One waveguide having the diameter of the Big end and the other waveguide having the diameter of the Small end.Aquino goes one step further: he considers the Power dissipated at the Small end to be different than the Power dissipated at the Big end (and indeed we know that the power is dissipated unequally at the ends of the real continuous EM Drive). What do you think of this approach and its consequences as analyzed by Aquino ? Force = (PowerDissBigEnd*RefrIndexBigEnd - PowerDissSmallEnd*RefrIndexSmallEnd)/c(...)(*) I have been made aware that Prof. Aquino has other out of the mainstream physics papers (concerning gravitational vs inertial mass), but the the purpose here is to address these equations solely based on their mathematical physics foundation and validity.
The conductive end is a "short circuit" on the coil, a perfect reflector. The magnetic end is an absorber, it stores energy without dissipation. In a system as I've described, even at 60Hz, the forces are not trivial. Failure of those forces to perfectly cancel each other out, may lead to a significant "thrust" without propellant.
Calculating Shawyer Demonstrator Df.Shawyer's thrust equation T = (2 * Df * Po * Q) / c gives us the ability to calc Df, knowing Q, T & Po as Df = (c * T) / (2 * Po * Q)Demonstrator EM Drive, published data:Q: 45,000Po: 334WT: 0.096NTherefore Df = 0.95714. This suggests Shawyer's reported Df of 0.844 is correct as effective Q at measured power may not be 45,000 due to thermal detuning or the magnetron frequency not being at cavity resonance....
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/28/2015 02:25 amCalculating Shawyer Demonstrator Df.Shawyer's thrust equation T = (2 * Df * Po * Q) / c gives us the ability to calc Df, knowing Q, T & Po as Df = (c * T) / (2 * Po * Q)Demonstrator EM Drive, published data:Q: 45,000Po: 334WT: 0.096NTherefore Df = 0.95714. This suggests Shawyer's reported Df of 0.844 is correct as effective Q at measured power may not be 45,000 due to thermal detuning or the magnetron frequency not being at cavity resonance....The big problem with inverting any multivariable equation like Shawyer's equation where T is an unknown :to get Df = (c * T) / (2 * Po * Q)in terms of experimental values, is that such an inversion presumes that Shawyer's equation can accurately predict experimental values to that level of accuracy.In other words, Df is a free parameter that can be forced to give any value of experimental value of thrust.One could do that with any equation, we could put a free parameter in McCulloch's equations for example and match a given set of experimental values as well.So, the right way to do this is not that way, but instead to have an expression for Df in terms of the geometry, and compute Df from the geometry, and then compare the predicted value of thrust force to experiments.The problem is that using Df = 0.95714 gives a diameter for the small base that is way smaller than what the Demo picture shows, as previously discussed in this thread by phase-shift
If the Design Factor is not expressed in terms of a defined cut-off frequency (like the lowest possible cut-off frequency) as we did in the previous pages, then the Design Factor is not a well-posed equation until it is defined what mode shape one is supposed to use for the cut-off frequency in the Design Factor.As you said, then one can "have fun"
Quote from: WarpTechThe conductive end is a "short circuit" on the coil, a perfect reflector. The magnetic end is an absorber, it stores energy without dissipation. In a system as I've described, even at 60Hz, the forces are not trivial. Failure of those forces to perfectly cancel each other out, may lead to a significant "thrust" without propellant.Why don't you build it and find out?When you discover it doesn't work, you'll be a better theorist for the experience, because you will first have to discover and understand your error, and then you will never again repeat it.
The thrust curves demonstrate that on the surfaces of the ma- jor and the minor end plates, the magnetic thrust is two orders of magnitude higher than the electric thrust; on the surface of the side wall, the magnetic thrust is three times of the electric thrust;
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/26/2015 08:22 pmI...Point well taken.It would be very useful to get strong skeptical reviews of Prof.Yang's paper ((translated) page 4 ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) concerning her equations stating that having a gas/fluid with charged particles inside the EM Drive results in transfer of its momentum to the EM Drive metallic body. ...
I...
It is one thing to say you have a propellantless microwave thruster and that in a few years cars will be flying but if there is no data to support these claims any sane individual would have to say it has all been a hoax.So to all you DIY'ers out there: Don't electrocute yourself or give yourself cataracts, etc., chasing a dream that will never materialize.
This says the imbalance on just the end plates is 100X more significant than those on the sidewalls. So my thought experiment is optimizing that end of it, so to speak.
so, no scat, there i was... I learned you can do stuff that violates the laws of physics so long as you label the process as happening in imaginary time even if it has real physical consequences.http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-quantum-tunneling-mystery.htmlSynopsis: Massive things that quantum tunnel can violate the physical speed limit of light so long as there isn't anybody watching and there cannot be anyone watching because it happens in imaginary time.I don't know about you; but i kind of had a different idea of what "imaginary" means but evidently imaginary does NOT mean unreal.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 05/28/2015 07:18 amso, no scat, there i was... I learned you can do stuff that violates the laws of physics so long as you label the process as happening in imaginary time even if it has real physical consequences.http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-quantum-tunneling-mystery.htmlSynopsis: Massive things that quantum tunnel can violate the physical speed limit of light so long as there isn't anybody watching and there cannot be anyone watching because it happens in imaginary time.I don't know about you; but i kind of had a different idea of what "imaginary" means but evidently imaginary does NOT mean unreal.Isn't that the same thing as I just posted above but with a different spin, if you pardon the pun?I saw someone suggesting & no idea if it's correct that this allows theoretical for greater than speed of light & teleportation?