Quote from: Einstein79 on 05/08/2015 03:51 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:52 amQuote from: Einstein79 on 05/07/2015 02:48 amThe reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law. A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:1. Space creates light.2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.Interesting! Would you then be prepared to write down the equations of motion so that we can play with them?The Mexican hat potential is a good place to start, I think, but not sure yet. It seems reasonable because it might coalesce with symmetry breaking. You and Mulletron seem to be going in the same direction, you might want to bounce ideas off each other...
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:52 amQuote from: Einstein79 on 05/07/2015 02:48 amThe reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law. A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:1. Space creates light.2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.Interesting! Would you then be prepared to write down the equations of motion so that we can play with them?The Mexican hat potential is a good place to start, I think, but not sure yet. It seems reasonable because it might coalesce with symmetry breaking.
Quote from: Einstein79 on 05/07/2015 02:48 amThe reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law. A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:1. Space creates light.2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.Interesting! Would you then be prepared to write down the equations of motion so that we can play with them?
The reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law. A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:1. Space creates light.2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.
I'm wondering, in the context of dr. rodal's remark on Shawyer's theory, where he (Shawyer) poses that forces are to be observed on the ends only, what would happen if one or both ends were to be replace by Cullen type ring reflector or mesh?Would one still observe forces of the same magnitude? From what I understood, waves would still be bouncing yet the surface upon which a force can be applied, or a momentum be transferred to would be drastically reduced...Somewhere , somehow, if this device really works, there must be a momentum transfer onto the frustum....If it is uncertain what role the end plates play, why try dielectric materials, or materials with a high magnetic permeability (this subject got completely lost in the current discussion?) on the side walls of the frustum to see if any drag effect is in effect?
We really need to take a stand and not entertain further discussion of "pushing on virtual particles" or referring to the QV as a plasma. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the quantum vacuum doesn't work this way.
Good. We are in violent agreement to self regulate this thread and keep pseudoscience out. Otherwise, this effort is lost.
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/11/2015 01:26 amQuote from: frobnicat on 05/10/2015 11:55 pm...I know a photon is not a ball but my question is, in "Newtonian layman's terms" how does the line of thinking you are developing making that analogy not valid, i.e. imply apparent deviation from conservation of momentum ?The ball (photon) doesn't fall back down the well. There is nothing to give it back enough energy to do so. It dissipates in multiple reflections between the walls and the big end. They are not getting more out than they put in, so it does not violate conservation of energy. They are simply getting more NET momentum on one direction than in the other direction because there is more dissipation and attenuation in one direction than there is in the other. Dissipative systems are typically "not" conservative, loses prevent a true equal measure from occuring in both directions. Todd D.Classically, a dissipative system is conservative for both momentum and energy, it's just that for energy there is a (irreversible) conversion to a degraded form of energy, but there is no such thing as a mysterious part of total energy that would simply vanish. Even if not always convenient, an open system can be seen as part of a bigger closed system, and short of that the deltas total energy and total momentum of an open system can still be accounted, at least in principle, as integrated fluxes exchanged between open system and an outside.My Newtonian ball of momentum pb can encounter an arbitrarily varying Force Fcb(t) of container on ball (vectors in bold). And dpb/dt=Fcb=-Fbc=-dpc/dt. That is instant conservation of momentum, and obviously integrating on successive instants just yields delta_pb=-delta_pc or delta_pb+delta_pc=0, conservation of momentum on any time interval whatever the shape of varying Force Fcb(t). Where and how quantitatively your system is showing an apparent breaking of CoM at an "instantaneous scale" dt ? Short of that, details of trajectory is just, ahem, arm waving for propulsion purpose (aka Dean drive).
Quote from: frobnicat on 05/10/2015 11:55 pm...I know a photon is not a ball but my question is, in "Newtonian layman's terms" how does the line of thinking you are developing making that analogy not valid, i.e. imply apparent deviation from conservation of momentum ?The ball (photon) doesn't fall back down the well. There is nothing to give it back enough energy to do so. It dissipates in multiple reflections between the walls and the big end. They are not getting more out than they put in, so it does not violate conservation of energy. They are simply getting more NET momentum on one direction than in the other direction because there is more dissipation and attenuation in one direction than there is in the other. Dissipative systems are typically "not" conservative, loses prevent a true equal measure from occuring in both directions. Todd D.
...I know a photon is not a ball but my question is, in "Newtonian layman's terms" how does the line of thinking you are developing making that analogy not valid, i.e. imply apparent deviation from conservation of momentum ?
...At the "instantaneous scale" there are collisions between photons and atoms where momentum is transferred and it generates heat but not thrust. When the photons are injected their momentum is p1 and energy is E1. It can only conserve NET momentum if there is a 50/50 probability that momentum is absorbed in each direction, without generating ANY heat at all. As soon as things start getting hot, the probability is not 50/50 anymore, then some of the momentum is not being absorbed as thrust, but rather to heat up the metal. Therefore, the NET momentum in either direction will depend on the difference in the dissipation and attenuation, in each direction. Todd D.
I know I'm new here but I've been in engineering for almost 50 years. The EM drive seems to parallel so many things I've seen in electronics and embrace harmonics and it got me thinking how it would compare to things like a YAGI antenna for gain buy linking them in series. Would you get a Q gain in thrust?
Quote from: SeeShells on 05/04/2015 01:45 pmI know I'm new here but I've been in engineering for almost 50 years. The EM drive seems to parallel so many things I've seen in electronics and embrace harmonics and it got me thinking how it would compare to things like a YAGI antenna for gain buy linking them in series. Would you get a Q gain in thrust?Great thought! I'm digging on this idea right now but more than Q it seems like the phasing has some profound effects as well. Not a lot of data there, but what little I've gleaned it looks like something I want to pursue. I've been refreshing my old vacuum tube/crystal radio school education so I can wrap my brain around it. I have some ideas but they are not ready to throw out here quite yet. I found a little blurb in a presentation where Dr. White (Sonny) briefly mentioned one of the tests they were thinking of was to put another passive EM device behind the active one to see if they could discern a pattern. To me this sounded like an YAGI and a great idea. Stack them up like a YAGI I thought, phase them to increase thrust.
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/11/2015 07:02 pm...At the "instantaneous scale" there are collisions between photons and atoms where momentum is transferred and it generates heat but not thrust. When the photons are injected their momentum is p1 and energy is E1. It can only conserve NET momentum if there is a 50/50 probability that momentum is absorbed in each direction, without generating ANY heat at all. As soon as things start getting hot, the probability is not 50/50 anymore, then some of the momentum is not being absorbed as thrust, but rather to heat up the metal. Therefore, the NET momentum in either direction will depend on the difference in the dissipation and attenuation, in each direction. Todd D.Yes, the problem is, however, how would this, quantitatively, result in a more efficient (thrust/PowerInput) propellant-less drive than a perfectly-collimated photon rocket.Another fascinating observation that @frobnicat made early on, is that for photons (whether tunneling, dissipation or another mechanism) to end up producing a more efficient drive than a photon rocket, the photons would have to escape the EM Drive as tachyons, superluminally.
1) Interesting how that presentation was just a few months ago. That was presented by the Chief Scientist NASA Ames. How things have changed, given the present official reaction by NASA and NASA Glenn regarding the efforts at NASA Eagleworks. (The "applications" section of the NSF article that generated so much controversy are old papers by Dr. White that he had published months and years ago).2) Unfortunately the tiny budget at NASA Eagleworks has prevented them from conducting the proposal to put another passive EM device behind the active one. Star-Drive posted some time ago that they didn't have another EM Drive to conduct the test
...Where is the calculation for a photon rocket comparison? When calculating the photon rocket thrust was the input power used, or the input power multiplied by the Q? I don't think I've seen that yet. I seriously need to start keeping a spreadsheet of data, tests, results and discussions. It's too much to keep track of in my head.
Quote from: Blaine on 05/07/2015 02:49 pmI'm new here and I just thought I would post this video for you all. Its a very VERY sloppy experimental setup of something like the what people on this forum are talking about. The interesting thing here is the man in the video doesn't use end-plates and its quite a bit slimmer than the EM Drive. Here is the video: youtube.com/watch?v=vcaOKX7Ko7wWhat are some thoughts about the video posted?Rough translation (From original in Russian):QuoteCreated Shawyer (EM Drive) engine is very easy and simple in its design . It provides the necessary thrust " by the oscillation of the microwaves inside the vacuum container ."http: //hi-news.ru/technology/v-nasa-i ...I decided that the system should not be closed It is a waveguide with one end open. The Russian author points out (later in his Russian text) that he thinks that Shawyer, and others are wrong in using a closed cavity.The reference (Cullen) given by Shawyer to support his theory also used in his experimental measurements of pressure, a cavity with one end open (with a transparent glass)It is known that a microwave waveguide having one end open will display directional thrust, as the microwave photons escape the waveguide. The problem with the EM Drive is that it is a closed cavity, hence it cannot be explained solely based on Maxwell's equations. Something else is needed: General Relativity, QV, something else.A waveguide with one end open will behave as a very inefficient photon rocket: thousands of times less thrust per power input than what is claimed in the EM Drive experiments.
I'm new here and I just thought I would post this video for you all. Its a very VERY sloppy experimental setup of something like the what people on this forum are talking about. The interesting thing here is the man in the video doesn't use end-plates and its quite a bit slimmer than the EM Drive. Here is the video: youtube.com/watch?v=vcaOKX7Ko7wWhat are some thoughts about the video posted?
Created Shawyer (EM Drive) engine is very easy and simple in its design . It provides the necessary thrust " by the oscillation of the microwaves inside the vacuum container ."http: //hi-news.ru/technology/v-nasa-i ...I decided that the system should not be closed
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/11/2015 06:12 pmGood. We are in violent agreement to self regulate this thread and keep pseudoscience out. Otherwise, this effort is lost.This endeavour is by definition "pseudoscience". I.e. it defies all our logic and principles that we have previously and whole heartedly embraced. Space is an actual object and performs work on everything we observe. The "vacuum" does not exist and this experiment is proof of this statement. We must question everything that we have learned and realize that the truth may lie in "pseudoscience". This experiment reveals that we lack understanding of our physical reality and the "laws" we blindly accept as truth are evidence of this misunderstanding because if they were completely accurrate then we would have already solved the problem.
Quote from: Flyby on 05/11/2015 03:54 pmI'm wondering, in the context of dr. rodal's remark on Shawyer's theory, where he (Shawyer) poses that forces are to be observed on the ends only, what would happen if one or both ends were to be replace by Cullen type ring reflector or mesh?Would one still observe forces of the same magnitude? From what I understood, waves would still be bouncing yet the surface upon which a force can be applied, or a momentum be transferred to would be drastically reduced...Somewhere , somehow, if this device really works, there must be a momentum transfer onto the frustum....If it is uncertain what role the end plates play, why try dielectric materials, or materials with a high magnetic permeability (this subject got completely lost in the current discussion?) on the side walls of the frustum to see if any drag effect is in effect?This device does really work and there need not be a momentum transfer onto the frustum because the momentum transfer is between the warp bubble and space-time itself. Remember, Dr. White's intention is to create a warp bubble where everything inside this warp bubble (the drive) are unperturbed.
...Would it be possible to amplify the waves in the cavity, trying to create a high pressure scenario that perhaps could be an efficient "photon" rocket? Can these waves be pressurized?
...Totally random thought but what if y = e
...As it is now, my preference goes to Todd's theoretical model, simply because that's something i can still understand and it makes sense to me, as layman. Not sure if it is THE right theory, but at this stage we're in , that doesn't matter much...(yet)