Quote from: Star One on 05/07/2015 10:34 amQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:21 amQuote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 amThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW 1.2 KW.Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that way
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:21 amQuote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 amThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW 1.2 KW.
Quote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 amThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW
That's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Ensuring that the device is encased and no heat is getting out sounds very sensible, yes.
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:38 amQuote from: Star One on 05/07/2015 10:34 amQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:21 amQuote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 amThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW 1.2 KW.Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that wayAs long as we hear the results that's all that matters.
Although i have a slight inclination towards believe there is indeed an effect, simply because of shawyer's video of his dynamic test, because of the test performed in china and because the Eagleworks results, I still feel very uncomfortable about the silence Shawyer has on his first generation super cooled device.If I would have irrefutable and impressive results with a supercooled EMdrive, I would not hesitate to make it known to the world. I'm sure a lot of scientific and financial interest would come my way... but I'm not Shawyer... still.. the question remains.. why the silence?
For the other question, the thrust, as a physicist I keep on being rather sceptical because I tried to move my car by hitting the windscreen with punches and nothing happened.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/07/2015 12:13 amQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:00 amIt's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.Or you could also give the example of EM Drive ship 1 (which started from a different place) being overtaken by EM Drive ship 2 ...EDIT:See White and Joosten, Appendix :http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdfI just read this... Oh my!deltaMass, I owe you an apology. I thought this was your derivation. I did not realize they published it that way. It was an assumption right from the start that acceleration is constant for constant input power. A "what if?" scenario. Fine, that's how the game is played if you want to get funded.Thank you.Todd
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:00 amIt's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.Or you could also give the example of EM Drive ship 1 (which started from a different place) being overtaken by EM Drive ship 2 ...EDIT:See White and Joosten, Appendix :http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.
Plan is to replicate the Flight Thruster using 100Ws of RF during the static tests. At 150W, Shawyer got around 40mN or 4gf of thrust, which would give me around 25mN or 2.5gf. As my setup will be much lighter than Shawyers rotary system and will be using magnetic bearings, 2.5gf should be more than enough thrust to run load versus power consumed tests and generate a descent curve to show COE is obeyed or not.
Quote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.
I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.
Quote from: WarpTechHypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box) but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled. What sort of motion would YOU expect to see? 1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.ToddI must confess that I don't understand this system. It seems to suggest that a gravitational field can be generated at will de novo and also shielded. I wouldn't know where to start with something like that.
Hypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box) but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled. What sort of motion would YOU expect to see? 1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.Todd
Given the explosive number of posts in this thread, since the NSF article, how about if we divide the thread as follows1) One thread for people that believe "EM Drive, Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory" (some posters have adhered to this principle of investigation, as of late)and2) another thread for those that rather continue with "EM Drive, Analyze data and Analyze theory" which was the original focus of threads EMDrive 1 and 2.It will result in easier searching and less clutter. The forum moderator may have to close this thread and start another one pretty soon, as this 2nd EM Drive thread is already approaching 140 pages, as threads cannot have an unlimited number of pages.This is an excellent time to make this decision.It will also be more in the spirit of this forum which is to keep threads focused on topic, as approach #1 above (which disregards any theory) is in conflict with approach #2
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:38 amQuote from: Star One on 05/07/2015 10:34 amQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:21 amQuote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 amThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW 1.2 KW.Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that wayAs long as it's not "1.21 Jiggawatts!"
Given the explosive number of posts in this thread, since the NSF article, how about if we divide the thread as follows1) One thread for people that believe "EM Drive, Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory" (some posters have adhered to this principle of investigation, as of late)and2) another thread for those that rather continue with "EM Drive, Analyze experiments and Analyze theory" which was the original focus of threads EMDrive 1 and 2.It will result in easier searching and less clutter. The forum moderator may have to close this thread and start another one pretty soon, as this 2nd EM Drive thread is already approaching 140 pages, as threads cannot have an unlimited number of pages.This is an excellent time to make this decision.It will also be more in the spirit of this forum which is to keep threads focused on topic, as approach #1 above (which disregards any theory) is in conflict with approach #2