Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/08/2018 07:04 amUntil 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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 12:37 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 11:45 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 11:26 amThere 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 ForceTT,I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.
Quote from: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 11:45 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 11:26 amThere 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
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 11:26 amThere 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?
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?
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!
(...)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
(...)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...
Quote from: jay343 on 06/08/2018 05:11 pm(...)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.
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
Quote from: Augmentor on 06/08/2018 04:41 pmflux-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.DGravity 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.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 06/08/2018 04:14 pmAs 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 Qu2) coupler loss Ql3) external loss via cavity generated Force doing Work on Mass QextQext = 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.
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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 02:26 pmEmDrives 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.Quote from: spupeng7 on 06/08/2018 03:10 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 12:37 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 11:45 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 11:26 amThere 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 ForceTT,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.
Funny moment to remember.