I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.It doesn't work.
...I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. *Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on. At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. *bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. *and the pattern repeats for future time steps.*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. ...
Quote from: RonM on 12/09/2015 06:29 pmI watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.It doesn't work.I am afraid you are mistaken. If you follow the diagram you have to look into the past. The top circuit interacts with the bottom circuit in the past. Likewise the bottom circuit interacts with the top circuit in the past. You have to make a criss cross pattern when considering the circuit interactions. If you do it properly you should observe that the top circuit is always repelled and the bottom circuit is always attracted. This takes advantage of two principles. Information is not instantaneous and by reversing the normal electromagnetic interaction of a straight line current. (this isn't a normal phased array antenna.)I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. *Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on. At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. *bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. *and the pattern repeats for future time steps.*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. ...Thanks for the inquiry as it helps me clarify for everyone who might have a question.
...I will focus on the example they give with 2 straight wires. These are 2 antennas with offset phases set at a specified distance this is a phased array, so we expect it to accelerate. ... (I don't have the time to work out the E field exactly) If you calculate the value for the force generated, you will find it to just be a (less efficient due to poor overall control of energy direction) photon rocket.
After this, they hand wave that using a coil plus a dielectric magically makes it many orders of magnitude more efficient.
I saw no supporting evidence for this at all. If designed right, coils instead of straight antennas might be more space efficient, but I really don't think it would work well at all. I don't have time to analyze it though. The dielectric would possibly decrease the spacing necessary between the antennas, but its exact effect is non-trivial.
I don't see any way that it would significantly change the system acceleration except that is adds more mass, which reduces the acceleration for the same momentum imparted to the system by the departing photons.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 12/09/2015 10:48 pm...I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. *Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on. At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. *bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. *and the pattern repeats for future time steps.*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. ...As far as your post here, you need to get your terminology straight before you try to explain this. For example "positive charge pole" is not a phrase that would be typically used. You seem to be using charge when referring to magnetic fields, but no known particles have a magnetic charge. ...
Quote from: dustinthewind on 12/09/2015 10:48 pmQuote from: RonM on 12/09/2015 06:29 pmI watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.It doesn't work.I am afraid you are mistaken. If you follow the diagram you have to look into the past. The top circuit interacts with the bottom circuit in the past. Likewise the bottom circuit interacts with the top circuit in the past. You have to make a criss cross pattern when considering the circuit interactions. If you do it properly you should observe that the top circuit is always repelled and the bottom circuit is always attracted. This takes advantage of two principles. Information is not instantaneous and by reversing the normal electromagnetic interaction of a straight line current. (this isn't a normal phased array antenna.)I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. *Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on. At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. *bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. *and the pattern repeats for future time steps.*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. *top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. ...Thanks for the inquiry as it helps me clarify for everyone who might have a question. I remember when David created that video. He and I were discussing this phased array idea and he figured out a way to rectify both fields. I commend him for it.
However, as with all the phased array's in free space, the distance "d" is wavelength dependent and depends on the speed of light. The "on axis" dipole near-field falls off like ~1/d at best. To minimize d, the frequency must be in the GHz and the dipoles must be very small.To make a long story short, it took me many years to figure all this out. First you find out that moving electrons at that frequency generates a lot of heat even for a small amount of power, and the small end plates have such a tiny capacitance that the air breaks down long before you can reach even 1 millicoulomb of charge. Then you realize you need about a megawatt to demonstrate anything remotely "useful" and it must operate in the MHz range, with MV rated capacitor plates and kA's of current. Next thing you know, you're looking for an aircraft hanger to build it in, because your garage isn't big enough for even the 1st dipole.
Regarding the patent I haven't read yet. I glanced at it and from what I've read here, they are using a dielectric. Correct? Anytime an asymmetrical EM field is generated, the medium polarizes in the opposite way to oppose the source of the field (except ferromagnetism). So if the asymmetrical field would normally exert a thrust forward, the dielectric medium will oppose that force. That's why David's closing comment about putting a dielectric between them won't work, unless you plan to operate under water, an attached dielectric will work against the thrust.
Not to discount resonant materials, but then we're just talking about a LASER really.IMO, none of these ideas bend space-time in any way. I have a little different take on the idea, but it too is impractical for demonstration purposes. See attached.Todd
I remember when David created that video. He and I were discussing this phased array idea and he figured out a way to rectify both fields. I commend him for it. ...Anytime an asymmetrical EM field is generated, the medium polarizes in the opposite way to oppose the source of the field (except ferromagnetism). So if the asymmetrical field would normally exert a thrust forward, the dielectric medium will oppose that force. That's why David's closing comment about putting a dielectric between them won't work, unless you plan to operate under water, an attached dielectric will work against the thrust. Not to discount resonant materials, but then we're just talking about a LASER really.IMO, none of these ideas bend space-time in any way. I have a little different take on the idea, but it too is impractical for demonstration purposes. See attached.Todd
...
Quote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 08:30 pmThe whole point of this essay is that Woodward is claiming that there is no problem with conservation of energy and so no reason to sneak in energy from some hypothetical Grav-Inertial Field. If there is a Grav-Inertial Field that the drive is reacting against then the entire essay is not only just as horribly wrong but entirely moot.And even if there were a Grav-Inertial Field you still have some hard questions about our relative velocity with it.I have been contemplating the nature of a Grav-Inertial field, if it does exist. So far the idea goes is that this Grav-Inertial substance should behave like a super fluid. If you are floating in it and you accelerate it takes time for it to catch up to your velocity and flows through you providing resistance to acceleration. At constant velocity it coasts with you at no resistance to the surrounding fluid that is not coasting with you. This gives you your inertial frame of space time with respect to some one else's. The other property of it is that the Grav-Inertial fluid flows into matter, which suggest why matter might have drag on the Grav-Inertial super fluid, and it accounts for gravity which may be the Grav-Inertial super-fluid flowing into matter. The idea is to use a black hole event horizon as a constraint for the velocity of the Grav-Inertial super-fluid that has reached light speed. Another property is that, "motion of this Grav-Inertial fluid" with respect to the CMB "cosmic microwave background" slows down light (maybe similar to a dielectric but also different) and contracts distance so that the change in the speed of light isn't detected locally but can be detected non-locally in gravitational lensing. Clocks also tick slower in faster moving Grav-Inertial fluid because your frame has a difference in velocity w.r.t. the moving frame. The fluid near the surface of the earth is moving faster than the fluid further from the earth so clocks lower in altitude tick slower. All motion should in a sense be absolute w.r.t. the beginning of the universe or the Doppler shifting of the CMB. (the ultimate 3rd observer or God point of view.)-----Some problems I am still pondering are if space is flowing into matter than where is it going. I might guess it is flowing off of our dimensional plane of existence and into another dimension. Maybe this other dimension is a negative matter dimension that is attracted to space-time flowing out "or Grav-Inertial super-fluid". Maybe this might explain the existence of dark matter in a sense. There may be another parallel universe that is gravitationally attracted to our universe because they share space time super-fluid, but not light. I.e. their stars are sucking in our space time and so appear to be gravitational. However, it may be the other way around. We may be the negative-energy matter and we are the ones increasing in space time. Could this explain the expansion of the universe? I don't know. Pushing against our super-fluid space time bubble that travels with us, like a road, may give thrust but then our "super-fluid space time bubble" that was traveling with us will be exhausted. As a result our matter will experience increased drag from the universal space-time fluid till it accelerates to our velocity. The increased drag may possibly apply mainly to the engine it self and the question becomes if it can provide more propulsion than the drag. Would this instead be an artificial gravity? I almost want to think of it as a jet-ski but I am not sure yet. Edit: Another mystery is the perimeter of the "local space-time bubble". Maybe it is very small, atomic. For instance consider a current carrying wire where the electrons have velocity with respect to the protons but coexist in the same wire. There is also electro-magnetic inertia. I think there are a lot of people looking into variations of what might be the case better qualified than I. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=quantum+vacuum+falling+near+earth&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=I found it interesting one of the papers in the link was addressing Woodward, "THE CASE FOR INERTIA AS A VACUUM EFFECT: A REPLY TO WOODWARD AND MAHOOD" by York Dobyns et al. I can't speak for either yet as it would take some looking into but looks interesting.
The whole point of this essay is that Woodward is claiming that there is no problem with conservation of energy and so no reason to sneak in energy from some hypothetical Grav-Inertial Field. If there is a Grav-Inertial Field that the drive is reacting against then the entire essay is not only just as horribly wrong but entirely moot.And even if there were a Grav-Inertial Field you still have some hard questions about our relative velocity with it.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/27/2015 05:21 pmhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01130@Notsosureofit. I thought you may be interested. QuoteIn this letter, we have thus shown that in “effectivemass”, a notion routinely used to describe the dispersionof the light in planar (or cylindrical) cavities, “effective”should be dropped. Indeed as photons are brought to afull stop in a cavity, they indeed acquire a mass in theusual sense of the word, both from the inertial and thegravitational point-of-view.I am not sure why they don't think of the light falling into a black hole as having real mass also. The light falling in will stop all acceleration and freeze in time effectively forming part of the black hole. Enough light falls into a black hole and it should grow larger, energy having equivalence to mass, and light can push a solar sail. Antimatter matter reactions also make a lot of light, and atomic (or nuclear) bonding energy can increase the mass of an atom? What I thought was interesting was this quote, page 3 4th paragraph i think. "However unlike in a vacuum cavity, the gravitational acceleration of the wavepacket is reduced by the medium, that acts as a kind of drag force for the wavepacket of light, as pointed out already in the context of light propagation in transparent moving media [18]."You can think of the dielectric for free space as having a drag on the light also. This suggest that the dielectric of free space is actually moving with respect to the cavity but the dielectric in the cavity isn't moving. The light is both being dragged by the moving free space and the non-moving dielectric in the cavity. Edited out part of this as it is already posted aboveEdit: If gravity could create traveling modes that accelerate by its drag then maybe inducing (accelerating) modes in a cavity could also drag space?A gif of what looked like one of the traveling modes attached below and the link for the rest of the files. Not sure any of them were accelerating. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharingLink above from this link here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450764#msg1450764Edit2: Eh? just realized this but maybe in this image you could think of it as ratcheting space time?edited out more that didn't have to do with this thread...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01130@Notsosureofit. I thought you may be interested. QuoteIn this letter, we have thus shown that in “effectivemass”, a notion routinely used to describe the dispersionof the light in planar (or cylindrical) cavities, “effective”should be dropped. Indeed as photons are brought to afull stop in a cavity, they indeed acquire a mass in theusual sense of the word, both from the inertial and thegravitational point-of-view.
In this letter, we have thus shown that in “effectivemass”, a notion routinely used to describe the dispersionof the light in planar (or cylindrical) cavities, “effective”should be dropped. Indeed as photons are brought to afull stop in a cavity, they indeed acquire a mass in theusual sense of the word, both from the inertial and thegravitational point-of-view.
A recient post "Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive" got me thinking of a previous idea I was mulling over, how to use a lower frequency to induce non-symetric propulsion in a special counter wound phased array. With a lower frequency most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric twice in one cycle. For two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires with wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using a frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m. Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase. Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart. Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get edited an incorrect problem: 2*(sec/cycle)*(ratio of tau) = 3E8/3E10*2*t = 1E-2*2(sec/cycle) the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric. If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds every cycle which could be used for propulsion. On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna I am guessing. using square waves might be problematic to achieve resonance and also still requires microwave frequencies and the same problems are encountered as using sine waves at that frequency which may not solve the problem of using lower frequencies. Using sine waves of lower frequency drastically reduces the force or radiation of a phased array. I assume a test of the reverse magnetic phased array remains untested and I have suspicion that a reverse magnetic phased array might provide greater than photon propulsion for near field effects. I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only gives photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects. You have to take into account time delayed information. The idea then is to counteract this in such a way that the inductive magnetic effects work with the charge separation (See second image attached below). Notice also in the bottom image how the apparent current propulsion opposes the apparent charge propulsion but with the counter-winding of the phased array the B-field propulsion works with the charge separation propulsion. The main problem is doing this a short distances using microwaves. Could we use lower frequencies? Possibly as stated above.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 12/17/2015 11:02 pmA recient post "Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive" got me thinking of a previous idea I was mulling over, how to use a lower frequency to induce non-symetric propulsion in a special counter wound phased array. With a lower frequency most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric twice in one cycle. For two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires with wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using a frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m. Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase. Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart. Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get edited an incorrect problem: 2*(sec/cycle)*(ratio of tau) = 3E8/3E10*2*t = 1E-2*2(sec/cycle) the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric. If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds every cycle which could be used for propulsion. On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna I am guessing. using square waves might be problematic to achieve resonance and also still requires microwave frequencies and the same problems are encountered as using sine waves at that frequency which may not solve the problem of using lower frequencies. Using sine waves of lower frequency drastically reduces the force or radiation of a phased array. I assume a test of the reverse magnetic phased array remains untested and I have suspicion that a reverse magnetic phased array might provide greater than photon propulsion for near field effects. I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only gives photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects. You have to take into account time delayed information. The idea then is to counteract this in such a way that the inductive magnetic effects work with the charge separation (See second image attached below). Notice also in the bottom image how the apparent current propulsion opposes the apparent charge propulsion but with the counter-winding of the phased array the B-field propulsion works with the charge separation propulsion. The main problem is doing this a short distances using microwaves. Could we use lower frequencies? Possibly as stated above.Hi all,Just thought I would add a post to this, as I was going to start a build of what could be described as dustinthewind's reverse phased array. Something I thought of about 10 years ago, but never got around to trying. This was my explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect, asymmetric electromagnetic field interactions rather than ion wind. (If the Biefeld-Brown effect was all ion wind it would not need to be an 'asymmetric' capacitor)Anyway, before I get way off topic here, has anyone tried building this 'reversed phase array'? and if so are there any posted results?If I don't hear anything I will continue my build, I was just searching around to see if anyone had done it already and ran into this thread.Mark
Hi all,Just thought I would add a post to this, as I was going to start a build of what could be described as dustinthewind's reverse phased array. Something I thought of about 10 years ago, but never got around to trying. This was my explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect, asymmetric electromagnetic field interactions rather than ion wind. (If the Biefeld-Brown effect was all ion wind it would not need to be an 'asymmetric' capacitor)Anyway, before I get way off topic here, has anyone tried building this 'reversed phase array'? and if so are there any posted results?If I don't hear anything I will continue my build, I was just searching around to see if anyone had done it already and ran into this thread.Mark
I would just like to give warning that building such an apparatus might be tricky. The distance at which the charge separates in the wire is related to the frequency used. The dimensions of the array would need to be matched to the frequency. One then needs to worry about separating the arrays a quarter wavelength apart. This changes if your using a dielectric making the arrays closer together by a factor in which the speed of light is slowed in the material. (A question for thought. - Is the speed of the electric field from charge separation different from the magnetic field in the material? Optimally this should not be different - is it?) Maximizing the effect means making a structure of exactly spaced arrays, how does one do this?To lower the frequency used one would need to use a dielectric and test that dielectric to see the speed at which the frequency travels through the material. (Test the speed at which the field from charge separation travels through the material and the speed of changes in the magnetic field?)In the end I realized this phased array I constructed is basically the same as the patent I first posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339#msg1338339patent us008459002B2 by John and David McleanDoes it exceed photon propulsion. Using the estimated output radiation of a laser (this would be worse if its just radiation propulsion) one can estimate the propulsion from ejected photons. The question being does it exceed photon propulsion? To do this means one should have an apparatus capable of measuring thrust from the photon level to larger. If one expects the thrust to be larger than photon propulsion then one can build an apparatus to measure that, but it might be nice to have a more sensitive device, though likely impractical. If you take these guys seriously they claim it produces forces on the level of DC magnets which goes way beyond photon propulsion. Not sure how seriously I can take that. Then again I don't know that their specific design has ever been tested in which the force from charge separation is constructively working in the same direction as the propulsion from change in the magnetic field which is unlike a standard phased array. In a standard phased array these forces oppose each other.
Have you calculated how much force you would be able to generate for a given input power?If you do the calculation correctly, it is guaranteed to be no more than the force of a photon rocket. (Exact value depends on the exact directivity of your setup.)Since there are more efficient ways to generate a well directed high power beam of photons, and the existence of radiation pressure has been measured multiple different ways, what do you hope to accomplish with your experiment?
Quote from: meberbs on 02/19/2019 06:17 amHave you calculated how much force you would be able to generate for a given input power?If you do the calculation correctly, it is guaranteed to be no more than the force of a photon rocket. (Exact value depends on the exact directivity of your setup.)Since there are more efficient ways to generate a well directed high power beam of photons, and the existence of radiation pressure has been measured multiple different ways, what do you hope to accomplish with your experiment?The measurement of radiation pressure of a photon is always done in the far field (>2 wavelengths from source). So what happens in the near field with this antenna configuration? (<1 wavelength from source)
I will admit, tuning this is going to be the tricky part, have a couple of oscillator designs that I am considering. My background is Electrical Engineering and have some Ham radio background as well. Currently under employed though so I may just have too much time on my hands.I will be using an air gap between elements at first, so as to leave room to change the distance between elements. I have some reason to believe that shortening the distance between elements may improve the coupling between them, offsetting the losses from not spacing at a quarter wavelength.
The measurement of radiation pressure of a photon is always done in the far field (>2 wavelengths from source). So what happens in the near field with this antenna configuration? (<1 wavelength from source)