Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635261 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Until then no more comments on theory from me. Time now to get ready to fabricate the frustum. Lots of photos will be posted of the process.

Phil,
Before you stop commenting on theory, please address my question about the acceleration required. Do you know what the minimum required acceleration is to lock in the "motor mode" as stated by Roger Shawyer?

Depends on the phase distortion introduced by the cavity and on the phase distortion introduced by freq instability of the Rf feed vs freq of the stored photons.

Doppler shift needs to get outside what I call the Wobble Zone as per the attached. Operation inside the Wobble Zone may produce inconsistent and strange results.

EW did record results showing thrust reversal during various runs that otherwise showed small end forward thrust (when the small end dielectric was fitted) and a not 100% reliability to observe force generation despite the last and next Rf pulses showing force generation.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
« Last Edit: 06/08/2018 01:17 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Depends on the phase distortion introduced by the cavity and on the phase distortion introduced by freq instability of the Rf feed vs freq of the stored photons.

Doppler shift needs to get outside what I call the Wobble Zone as per the attached. Operation inside the Wobble Zone may produce inconsistent and strange results.
Attached graph is not helpful. You just have an arbitrary thickness line on an arbitrarily scaled graph. You can just zoom in and there will be no difficulty seeing the separation of the curvea. The axes and shape of the graph do not involve "phase distortion."

Also, to be useful, you need to provide equations that produce the graph. It is not clear what assumptions went into it.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2018 04:19 pm by meberbs »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?


You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
TT,
I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.

As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 67
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D

Offline TheTraveller

As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

FC,

Creating a Force of say 9.8N, as example, does not mean the Force does Work on a hovering Mass as for that to happen the Force must cause the Mass to move a Distance.

Work = Force * Distance.

Hovering a Mass does not require Work to be done on it as it does not move a Distance. Also means the hovering Mass has no Velocity change and thus no momentum or KE change.

In an EmDrive, or in an accelerator cavity, energy loss per cycle comes in 3 forms:

1) eddy current heating loss Qu
2) coupler loss Ql
3) external loss via cavity generated Force doing Work on Mass Qext

Qext = stored energy / (eddy current loss + coupler loss + ext Work loss)

If there is no ext Work loss then more cavity energy is turned into eddy current loss. Likewise the more cavity energy that is lost as ext Work energy, the lower the eddy current loss and the cavity operating temp drop.

Sort of like an unloaded solar panel of 1m^2 with 1kw^m2 of solar energy applied. The unloaded panel gets very hot as it needs to radiate away 1kw of waste energy. Now connect up a 250W electrical load to the panel and export 250W of energy. Radiated waste energy reduces to 750W and the solar panel operating temp drops.

No more theory until the KISS thruster is rotating round and round.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
« Last Edit: 06/08/2018 05:08 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline jay343

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • California
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 8
As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...

Offline spupeng7

(...)

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

(...)
D
Augmentor, are you suggesting that the gravitational field should be quantized?  :o
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline spupeng7

(...)

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...
jay343,
    Shawyers 2006 report gives results for vertical tests, but they are harder to measure than horizontal tests, maybe too hard at mN output.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline TheTraveller

Once the rotary test series are completed, there will be a series of "up and down static" tests on an electronic scale.

Goal is to drmonstrate and quantify the operational characterists of the KISS thruster over a wide range of potential use situations.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

(...)

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...
jay343,
    Shawyers 2006 report gives results for vertical tests, but they are harder to measure than horizontal tests, maybe too hard at mN output.

The Experimental, Demonstrator and Flight Thruster were all tested in Up and Down situations. Almost all the released test data is from static vertical testing.

As far as I know, the Demonstrator was the only unit tested on a rotary test rig. There are horizontal static and accelerative test data released for the Demonstrator.

As the Flight Thruster was developed under contract for Boeing, very little test data has been released.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D

Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, yet people keep talking about "quantum gravity".
Therefore the graviton is a hypothetical particle, a spin-2 particle, still AWOL in physics.
Repeating things doesn't make them exist.
Spacetime itself is the field in Einstein's general relativity.
There is no spacetime in the absence  of gravity.
The EEP is the basis of the principle of relativity.

About the EEP, an analysis from Woodward of Carl Brans' 1962 paper "Mach's Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity" (attached below):

Brans' argument figures prominently in getting GR right.  It's as important as Galileo's identification of the principle of relativity for inertial systems in motion with constant relative velocity and Einstein's extension of the principle of relativity to accelerating systems and gravitational fields in his version of the Equivalence Principle.  Brans noted in Einstein's 1921 comments on Mach and inertia (in lectures at Princeton, published in The Meaning of Relativity) that the piling up of "spectator" matter in the vicinity of a test mass should change the mass of the test body by changing its gravitational energy.  This is wrong.  As Brans pointed out, were this true, one could change the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles simply by putting them in a gravitational field.  So, one would be able to tell the difference between rocket sitting on Earth and one accelerating at one gee in deep outer space just by measuring the charge to mass ratio (with an electric field) of a test body in the cabin without having to look out  port hole. This is a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

In order to avoid violating the Equivalence Principe, Brans argued that one had to accept the "locally measured invariance of the gravitational constant".  Actually, you have to do more than that.  You have to accept the "locally measured invariance" of the total scalar gravitational potential -- so that the gravitational potential energies of test bodies are not affected by "spectator" matter.  In spatially flat, critical cosmic matter density FRW cosmologies like ours, this translates to the total scalar gravitational potential (yes, ϕ) is equal to c².  We all know why this is important.  It means that the coefficient of the acceleration in the equation of motion -- ϕ/c² -- is everywhere and everywhen equal to one.  Brans' argument locks the gravitational origin of inertia into GR and shows that any other assumption will lead to violations of the Equivalence Principle. That is, violations of the principle of relativity.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D

Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, yet people keep talking about "quantum gravity".
Therefore the graviton is a hypothetical particle, a spin-2 particle, still AWOL in physics.
Repeating things doesn't make them exist.
Spacetime itself is the field in Einstein's general relativity.
There is no spacetime in the absence  of gravity.
The EEP is the basis of the principle of relativity.

About the EEP, an analysis from Woodward of Carl Brans' 1962 paper "Mach's Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity" (attached below):

Brans' argument figures prominently in getting GR right.  It's as important as Galileo's identification of the principle of relativity for inertial systems in motion with constant relative velocity and Einstein's extension of the principle of relativity to accelerating systems and gravitational fields in his version of the Equivalence Principle.  Brans noted in Einstein's 1921 comments on Mach and inertia (in lectures at Princeton, published in The Meaning of Relativity) that the piling up of "spectator" matter in the vicinity of a test mass should change the mass of the test body by changing its gravitational energy.  This is wrong.  As Brans pointed out, were this true, one could change the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles simply by putting them in a gravitational field.  So, one would be able to tell the difference between rocket sitting on Earth and one accelerating at one gee in deep outer space just by measuring the charge to mass ratio (with an electric field) of a test body in the cabin without having to look out  port hole. This is a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

In order to avoid violating the Equivalence Principe, Brans argued that one had to accept the "locally measured invariance of the gravitational constant".  Actually, you have to do more than that.  You have to accept the "locally measured invariance" of the total scalar gravitational potential -- so that the gravitational potential energies of test bodies are not affected by "spectator" matter.  In spatially flat, critical cosmic matter density FRW cosmologies like ours, this translates to the total scalar gravitational potential (yes, ϕ) is equal to c².  We all know why this is important.  It means that the coefficient of the acceleration in the equation of motion -- ϕ/c² -- is everywhere and everywhen equal to one.  Brans' argument locks the gravitational origin of inertia into GR and shows that any other assumption will lead to violations of the Equivalence Principle. That is, violations of the principle of relativity.


There seems a fundamental error in the following statement, ”Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, ...”…, which then affects the whole of how the rest of the post might be understood/interpreted.

Quantum mechanics is a theoretical model, where gravity is a directly observable aspect of reality. The statement would be more accurate if it were phrased as, “General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible...”, or “Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible...”.

The reality is that both gravitation/gravity and quantum phenomenon exist and are observable (within the limits of our current technologies).., and since they both are real (observables), they are in fact compatible.., we just don't currently know with any certainty, how they fit together. We don’t even know with certainty that the underlying theories, “general relativity and quantum mechanics”, represent the last would on what our future understanding of gravitation and quantum phenomena might be.

This said,

The discussion seems to be straying from its earlier connection to an EmDrive and requirements needed for acceleration, or as TheTraveler says for the drive to enter “motor mode”... To that.., the EEP aside, I don’t believe that just being in a gravitational field qualifies as acceleration, or meets the requirement of “free to accelerate”.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

FC,

Creating a Force of say 9.8N, as example, does not mean the Force does Work on a hovering Mass as for that to happen the Force must cause the Mass to move a Distance.

Work = Force * Distance.

Hovering a Mass does not require Work to be done on it as it does not move a Distance. Also means the hovering Mass has no Velocity change and thus no momentum or KE change.

In an EmDrive, or in an accelerator cavity, energy loss per cycle comes in 3 forms:

1) eddy current heating loss Qu
2) coupler loss Ql
3) external loss via cavity generated Force doing Work on Mass Qext

Qext = stored energy / (eddy current loss + coupler loss + ext Work loss)

If there is no ext Work loss then more cavity energy is turned into eddy current loss. Likewise the more cavity energy that is lost as ext Work energy, the lower the eddy current loss and the cavity operating temp drop.

Sort of like an unloaded solar panel of 1m^2 with 1kw^m2 of solar energy applied. The unloaded panel gets very hot as it needs to radiate away 1kw of waste energy. Now connect up a 250W electrical load to the panel and export 250W of energy. Radiated waste energy reduces to 750W and the solar panel operating temp drops.

There are 2 situations to consider wrt to something that is "hovering" :
A: It is sitting on a shelf or otherwise supported.   In this case no work is required to keep it hovering.

B: A rocket, propeller, or other thruster is applying a force of 1 G that counteracts gravity.  In this case mass is being pushed- air in the case of a prop or hot gas from a rocket.   Any device that produces thrust has to transfer momentum.   If the EM-Drive is creating thrust in a horizontal position there would be no difference in its operation if it was turned vertical.  Whatever it is transferring momentum to will still see a time-wise increase in momentum.  There should be no preferred direction for the EM-Drive to work.  It either works in all directions or it works in none.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2018 06:24 pm by zen-in »

Offline TheTraveller

There are 2 situations to consider wrt to something that is "hovering" :
A: It is sitting on a shelf or otherwise supported.   In this case no work is required to keep it hovering.

B: A rocket, propeller, or other thruster is applying a force of 1 G that counteracts gravity.  In this case mass is being pushed- air in the case of a prop or hot gas from a rocket.   Any device that produces thrust has to transfer momentum.   If the EM-Drive is creating thrust in a horizontal position there would be no difference in its operation if it was turned vertical.  Whatever it is transferring momentum to will still see a time-wise increase in momentum.  There should be no preferred direction for the EM-Drive to work.  It either works in all directions or it works in none.

Gravity is a downward Force. Applying an upward Force will hover a Mass if the upward generated Force equals the downward gravity Force.

Creating an upward Force does not involve doing Work on a hoveing Mass. If the Mass does not Move a Distance, ie no Velocity change, there is no Momentum nor KE gain of the hovering mass. Therefore no Work has been done on the hovering Mass and no Momentum nor KE Joules of energy has been transferred to the hovering Mass.

The EmDrive is not a rocket engine. It does not need to repel mass to create a Force. Folks need to stop thinking along rockey engine lines of thought.

Later I will explain how and from where, during the acceleration of mass, the mass gained momentum and KE comes from, plus will show how, in an EmDrive, CofE and CofM are conserved.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
« Last Edit: 06/09/2018 07:15 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
Therefore no Work has been done on the hovering Mass and no Momentum nor KE Joules of energy has been transferred to the hovering Mass.

The EmDrive is not a rocket engine. It does not need to repel mass to create a Force. Folks need to stop thinking along rockey engine lines of thought.

The fact there is no work done (since work is force × distance, and the levitating EmDrive would not move across a distance when it hovers) does not mean there is no energy transferred to it to accomplish this exploit.

A hovering helicopter pushes some air downward and it's pushed in the other direction, upward, as a reaction. It is the mass of moved air that accounts for the work done by the rotor.

But for a hypothetical levitating EmDrive (not standing on a shelf, obviously) the thruster would not push any reaction mass to react with. That's why it is so counterintuitive.

So the example of the helicopter (or the rocket engine) is not a good one to compare with, you're right.

Let's rather take instead the example of something well proven, that can silently hover in the air without moving any reaction mass downward. Such a thing does exist! It is a copper disk put above a big electromagnet. A rapidly varying electric current circulates inside the coil. It produces an axial high frequency varying magnetic field. The varying magnetic field induces strong eddy currents in the electrically conductive material of the disc. Due to Lenz's law, these currents counterbalance the effect of the ambient variable magnetic field, so the induced magnetic field produced by the disc opposes the magnetic field produced by the electromagnet, and the disc electromagnetically levitates in the air.

Same principle for first Maglev trains BTW, even if superconducting materials levitating with the Meissner effect are now preferred.

The levitating disc is a very fun and impressive experiment I saw once at the Palais de la Découverte in Paris (the "Discovery Palace", a French museum dedicated to science), and I've just found a video of it:



This is the effect, on a 1kg aluminum disc, of an alternating current of 800 amperes (!!!) in a coil at a frequency of 900 Hz.

Whatever, if you wait enough time while the experiment is running, the initial wobble will decay and eventually stop and the disc will perfectly stand still in the air, with no reaction mass pushed downward).

The fact that "the work done is zero" does not mean the disc doesn't consume energy to achieve the sustentation. Indeed several kilowatts of power are transferred to the disc by the electromagnetic field to produce the eddies and the opposite magnetic field that creates the upward force.

Some anecdote. This reminds me of a joke the experimenter made at us that day.

The man was holding that little bottle with a clear liquid in it you see at the end of the video, fitted with a spray vaporizer instead of a standard lid. He said to the compact audience all around him, while we were looking at the stunning levitating disc:
"Sorry guys, I still have with me this little bottle of highly concentrated hydrochloric acid from another experiment, do you want to see how strong the acid is?"
As everyone was replying with a cheerful "Yes!" he sprayed a little amount of the liquid on the top of the flying disc:
*** PSCHHHHHhhhhhh ***
The liquid instantly made a large churn of whitish vapor in the air.
"Oooooooohhhh" -- the audience was impressed.
"Very dangerous acid, it is" the experimenter said.
And he pressed the trigger once again, but this time the acid shot straight in the air above our heads, and started to fall back down toward us in a parabolic trajectory…
"AAAAAAaahhh!!!" yelled scared people looking at the spurt of acid aiming at their heads.

But the "acid" was in fact just some demineralized water…

The churn of vapor on the disc was not due to some acidic decomposition, it was simply due to the water instantly vaporizing when it was touching the extremely hot disc. The heat was caused by the very strong eddies in the metal. with 800 amperes and the high efficiency of EM induction, the disc was hot as hell.

Funny moment to remember.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2018 08:24 pm by flux_capacitor »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 19
EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?


You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
TT,
I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.

As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.
There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.

It is not the mass of the Earth that makes the work significant though.  That is actually irrelevant. Force times distance is the correct equation as TT said, (force times velocity gives power) but since we are moving the Earth, we need to use the reference frame of the sun to get an inertial frame. The Earth is moving at 30km/s so to get best effect, point it straight up at dawn (near the equator, but best latitude is a function of time of year.) 10 mN would be power of 300W. Added to the Earth.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2018 12:07 am by meberbs »

Offline TheTraveller

Funny moment to remember.

Hi FC,

All the Rf input energy to the hovering EmDrive exits as waste heat due to eddy currents in the end plates and side walls. So energy is consumed but no Work is done on the hovering mass as it does not move.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
« Last Edit: 06/10/2018 01:07 am by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Hi ppnl,

Correct.

If you do the math, the momentum & KE gain of the Earth is very very very small.

As our reference frame is the mass the EmDrive is accelerating, the Earth, this equation makes it simple.

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m)
N = Newtons being 9.8,
t = seconds of acceleration,
m = kg of accelerated mass being ~5.9 x 10^24 kg.

So the KE increase of the Earth will be very much smaller than the eddy current loss.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
« Last Edit: 06/10/2018 01:13 am by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • United States
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 10
Let me summarize the last couple of pages:

Tajmar is reporting a directional force based on the orientation of a piece of electronics in a self contained setup.  Might not be in resonance in the can.  He also reports similar findings on a MAGA drive that was not predicted to produce a force within the resolving power of his equipment.

The Polish researcher found actual downward force (against rising hot air) on a vertical setup.  There is additional data that is hard to interpret as data about the horizontal setup has been mixed.  I think he is claim about 10 uN horizontal deflection with both the device in a null configuration and a dummy load.  It's hard to tell looking at these graphs but I think he is claiming something like a 27 uN horizontal deflection with the device operational.

Jamie is claiming a potential 8uN horizontal deflection (what was the power level of this).  This seems to be related to the heating of a piece of electronics.

TT wants to make sure Jamie is in resonance and is concerned about this motor mode stuff he has been going on about for years.

Lots of yelling.

So: 1. The EMDrive surrounded by a plastic insulator might not be working.

2. Tajmar's student fabricated device might not be in resonance.

3.  We need to better characterize the approximately 10 uN force that both Jamie and the Polish team are reporting.  Let's make sure this we have not detected an anomalous force effect in the wire.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1