NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 05/19/2017 11:29 PM

Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/19/2017 11:29 PM
This is a thread - Thread 10 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0

Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0

Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0

Thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0

Thread 9:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0
--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:

http://emdrive.wiki
http://rfdriven.com

Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 03:37 AM
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 11:56 AM
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.

The miniVNA Tiny works very well for return loss sweeps. It also has a smith chart for impedance matching the antenna. http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/20/2017 12:55 PM
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 01:09 PM
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?

I use the windfreak as a signal generator and RF power detector. Then I use the miniTiny VNA for VNA and impedance tuning.  The miniTinyVNA is not permanently attached to the torsional pendulum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/20/2017 01:13 PM
Oh I see now, I wasn't aware of that setup, thanks for the clarification !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rfmwguy on 05/20/2017 01:41 PM
NBC News

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/the-big-questions/will-impossible-motor-take-people-other-planets-n761101
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 03:52 PM
According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company. While some may be available used, it's disconcerting that it's been discontinued. But then again, the HP 8753 I mentioned is discontinued and over thirty years old. However I have a great trust in classic HP equipment.

EDIT: I did find a knock-off of this unit available from China, but I wonder how good it is and true to the original. It sure is cheap in comparison to other units ($330) https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/3G-miniVNA-Tiny-Vector-Network-Analyzer-Frequency-1-3000-Mhz-RF-Antenna-Analyzer-VNA-Signal-Generator/1939783_32717858518.html (https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/3G-miniVNA-Tiny-Vector-Network-Analyzer-Frequency-1-3000-Mhz-RF-Antenna-Analyzer-VNA-Signal-Generator/1939783_32717858518.html)

Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.

The miniVNA Tiny works very well for return loss sweeps. It also has a smith chart for impedance matching the antenna. http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 04:37 PM
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?

For those needs I will be using the LimeSDR, two of which are supposed to be arriving next week (after almost a year wait).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 05/20/2017 05:43 PM
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. ...

What you found there is the KC901S, one of a series of handheld network analyzers that are becoming very popular in the amateur radio community around the world. The previous models have been available in China for a couple of years now and people were already buying them directly from China through Taobao agents when the manufacturer did not have official overseas distributors.

The series initially became popular around 2014 with the KC901H model, followed by the slightly updated KC901E. Both were scalar-only instruments, now discontinued predecessors of the model you saw.

Then they released the KC901S and also began to more actively market it overseas. The KC901S was redesigned for higher battery capacity (4 instead of 2 cells) and for the first time it included some basic vector network analysis functions (S11 was vector, but S21 scalar only).

The newest model is now the KC901V. It works to 6.8 GHz (compared to 3 GHz for the -S model), goes down to 9 kHz, performs vector measurements for both S11 and S21. They also redesigned the amplitude detector to a digital design, resulting in noise floor improvements and the more options for resolution bandwidths in spectrum analysis mode. They call it an "RF Multimeter" because it includes the functions of a network analyzer, a spectrum analyzer, two signal generator configurations for RF and LF, and a frequency selective RF level meter (like a basic measurement receiver).

You can find a summary here: http://www.deepace.net/kc901v-6-8ghz-handheld-network-analyzer-rf-multimeter/

A datasheet in English is available (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_sPOt4-zQd8RWlVbGZLUld4bDQ/view) and it also includes a block diagram with a short description of the instrument's measurement principles.

Some people have reviewed various models from the "KC901" series and posted their reviews on the net. Here you can find a very detailed review of the latest -V model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN9PKKdFibo
 
P.S. Both the -S and the -V models are currently sold. Since I own neither one myself, I don't have direct experience with them. From the published specs and from what radio enthusiasts have posted in public forums, the newer -V one appears to be clearly superior in its abilities and technical characteristics, but of course it is also more expensive. When compared to "traditional" RF instruments however, both seem to have relatively benign price tags.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 07:10 PM
According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company.

Where does it say the miniVNA Tiny has been discontinued? I see a new unit available from Ham Radio Outlet now.  I think you are mistaking, "The production of the "EXTENDER" ended in December 2014" - which is another product: http://miniradiosolutions.com/extender/ 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/21/2017 08:18 AM
You may even build your VNA :)

http://hforsten.com/cheap-homemade-30-mhz-6-ghz-vector-network-analyzer.html#

The site carries full infos, pcb blueprints and cad files and full sw on github

[edit]

The problem with DIY is mainly calibration and stability; while the first one may be solved, the second one mainly depends from circuit and pcb design and could be critical since when it comes to measurements, once the VNA is calibrated, you should have always the same error/deviation, but sometimes this may not be the case, components stability (also due to heat) may cause variations and while this may be ok for some amateur radio or similar applications, I doubt it may be suitable for a test rig trying to measure and understand an experimental device like the EMdrive; in such a case one usually wants some good (enough) and stable measurement system, otherwise, well, one won't even know what gets measured, be it a signal, noise or some measurement device error. Not saying that one must pick professional and costly devices (at least not as a start), but having some commercial one, whose problems have already been solved, will for sure be of help :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/21/2017 10:45 AM
You are correct. I misread. My humble apologies. I believe that is the responsibility of every scientist to read closely, and in this case, I gave it no more than a simple cursory scan before reporting its discontinuance. I could blame too much caffeine,which may be a cause, but not an excuse.


According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company.

Where does it say the miniVNA Tiny has been discontinued? I see a new unit available from Ham Radio Outlet now.  I think you are mistaking, "The production of the "EXTENDER" ended in December 2014" - which is another product: http://miniradiosolutions.com/extender/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/21/2017 11:44 AM
There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/22/2017 02:30 AM
Is that magnetic charge physical or not… Is an electron really made of "two magnetic charges" or is the magnetic field just a description of the electrodynamic interaction of two charged particles in motion relatively to each other, due to their spin?

Physically speaking, it depends of how you answer the question what is the magnetic field.

Simplistic view: when you cut a magnet in half, you don't get two separate North pole and South pole, you get two dipole magnets. You can cut the magnet again and again and again down to the atomic level: finally you'll reach the electron which is still a magnetic dipole. It's like saying you want to slice a window glass so thin because you want a window with only one side.

So according to this view, the magnetic field is something that comes out from an electric flow (current) and not the other way around, and it is always a dipole. And the magnetic monopole cannot exist.

But is an electron made of two magnetic charges? When explaining the origin of mass and inertia, some people including the media tell it is due to a particle, the Higgs boson. Although they omit to say it is just a hypothesis, and others hypotheses for the origin of inertia do exist, like the Mach-Einstein-Sciama-Woodward hypothesis, or quantized inertia (MiHsC). But at this point choosing between them is rather a matter of belief.

Dirac's equations plead in favor of the existence of discrete magnetic charges and magnetic monopoles. Observation does not. What is reality?

My understanding of the magnetic field is incomplete, since there is no electric charge in movement in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, although there is a magnetic and electric fields associated with the wave. I admit I don't understand the physical meaning of an EM wave, I have always seen this as a mathematical trick and not a true description of reality, especially as there is no æther as a medium for the propagation of the wave and its EM field. Except EM waves are really propagating in vacuum, so… I'll stop there, because I can't add more to the debate. But you get the idea.

Thank you flux_capacitor,

this is exactly why I have developed a conceptual explanation for 'action at a distance' which allows a moment of complex time to be that place where quantum exchange requires no intermediary particle and no fields. The electric field is, in my opinion, a broken description of how electrical force acts upon a charge which is separated from an emission by light speed. The magnetic field is a broken description of how combinations of positive and negative electric fields act upon remote charges. All electromagnetic action being completely absorbed. Inertia and gravity being similar interactions partially absorbed by all charges.

This must sound like broken record but if it did not make more sense to me than collapsing fields at an absorption, I would happily shut up and go away.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/22/2017 03:40 AM
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 06:19 AM
ERASynth: something to check out

 https://myriadrf.org/blog/tag/erasynth/

 https://www.crowdsupply.com/era-instruments/erasynth

A quite interesting signal generator :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 07:36 AM
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/22/2017 07:49 AM
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
I think what happened is a lot of people were posting stuff in the old thread after Mr Bergin posted the closing and requesting all further posts to be in the new thread. thus a few monopole related posts got banished into the aether -a shame because they were good though they were tangential to the topic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2017 07:54 AM
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
That is another article based on the same research that started the recent discussions.

It has some good information in it including a description of the 2 types of pseudo-monopoles. Neither is an actual monopole, and I don't think this direction of research can lead to a real monopole, which would be a new particle and discovered at the LHC or some similar experiment. It still is interesting, and could lead to something useful in the future.
Quote
"Whereas the Dirac monopole experiment simulates the motion of a charged particle in the vicinity of a monopolar magnetic field, the quantum monopole has a point-like structure in its own field resembling that of the magnetic monopole particle itself."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 09:25 AM
There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.

Had a look at LimeSDR (here (https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/) and here (https://wiki.myriadrf.org/LimeSDR_Quick_Start)) and, for sure, it's an interesting board; I just have some doubt about the accuracy of its measurements and the cleanliness of its signal (harmonics and so on); also, when it comes to measurements, other critters, like the SynthNV or the MiniVNA allow to setup a sweep and let the device do the job, storing the data in the device's internal RAM and then returning them, this speeds up things quite a lot, but the LimeSDR doesn't seem capable of doing so, I mean, apparently to sweep you'll need to send a flow of commands to the device... am I wrong ?

Also, and since we're at instruments and tools, I think that adding some pointers to VNA devices, signal generators, (pre)amplificators, attenuators and the like to the wiki (e.g. here (http://emdrive.wiki/Useful_EMDrive_Design_and_Test_Tools)) may be a good thing ;)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 09:36 AM
All,

A update on the shop.

Got paint on the walls, lights bought and hung and will start moving in the other machines, band saw, lathe, English wheel, buffers, grinders, tool boxes, extra doodads for the shop like hardware bins, racks etc.

Hope to maybe have enough room for my work bench area, but will see. If not then I have another workshop that's a 18'x20' that needs most everything from floors to insulation, walls and power.

My Very Best,
Shell

Nice setup, Shells; just curious, are you planning to setup your test rig as for the design published in the wiki (http://emdrive.wiki/images/b/bb/Warp_Shell-Lift_testEMDrive_%282%29.png) or did you change your mind and decided to go for a different test rig (e.g. like Jamie's one) ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 AM
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 11:58 AM
At this point one may guess everything ranging from entanglement to whatever other simple or exotic theory, even something like

http://www.sciencealert.com/increasing-entropy-could-signal-that-a-mysterious-quantum-flip-is-about-to-occur

may fit, better being over-cautious and going on step after step
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/22/2017 02:09 PM
The LimeSDR is built around the LMS7002D FPRF http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/ (http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/) which has built-in calibration features which I hope will be adequate for VNE calibration. It's got a build-in microcontroller and the LimeSDR has 256MB of RAM, so I think it likely that the VNE program is uploaded to the onboard RAM, run by the microcontroller, and results stored in that RAM. A user program would later download these to a PC via the USB3 port. Does the 12 bit DAC/ADC create a sufficiently clean signal? I don't know. I'll look at the resolution of what the SynthNV and MiniVNA have in their DAC and see how they compare, and may ask on some other forums as well.

I think you are absolutely correct about posting test equipment on the Wiki. That's what it is ideal for. 

There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.

Had a look at LimeSDR (here (https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/) and here (https://wiki.myriadrf.org/LimeSDR_Quick_Start)) and, for sure, it's an interesting board; I just have some doubt about the accuracy of its measurements and the cleanliness of its signal (harmonics and so on); also, when it comes to measurements, other critters, like the SynthNV or the MiniVNA allow to setup a sweep and let the device do the job, storing the data in the device's internal RAM and then returning them, this speeds up things quite a lot, but the LimeSDR doesn't seem capable of doing so, I mean, apparently to sweep you'll need to send a flow of commands to the device... am I wrong ?

Also, and since we're at instruments and tools, I think that adding some pointers to VNA devices, signal generators, (pre)amplificators, attenuators and the like to the wiki (e.g. here (http://emdrive.wiki/Useful_EMDrive_Design_and_Test_Tools)) may be a good thing ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/22/2017 02:16 PM
All,

A update on the shop.

Got paint on the walls, lights bought and hung and will start moving in the other machines, band saw, lathe, English wheel, buffers, grinders, tool boxes, extra doodads for the shop like hardware bins, racks etc.

Hope to maybe have enough room for my work bench area, but will see. If not then I have another workshop that's a 18'x20' that needs most everything from floors to insulation, walls and power.

My Very Best,
Shell

Nice setup, Shells; just curious, are you planning to setup your test rig as for the design published in the wiki (http://emdrive.wiki/images/b/bb/Warp_Shell-Lift_testEMDrive_%282%29.png) or did you change your mind and decided to go for a different test rig (e.g. like Jamie's one) ?
Thanks.
Oh my no. I'm currently in the build of the 4th layout.

This was my very first hack at doing something and just getting it down on paper. My first real build in my shop was this. http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

Winter came ... and at 8700 foot in the Rockies it can be brutal. Just couldn't keep it warm. I moved it into a "kind of unused" room in my home. I built 2 different test stands after that, using modified torsion pendulum style designs. http://imgur.com/a/LSwQN

Currently I'm redoing it again as the house is not stable enough and I'm getting too many ambient vibrations. I needed a place for my tools and metal working machines for this next build as it's become more than a simple copper can.

The test stands have improved (thanks Dr. Rodal, Paul March and so many others for help).  The drive designs have also improved.

Thanks for asking, sorry guys I promised I'd post more but sometimes I get very busy for a old lady. ;)

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 03:05 PM
Winter came ... and at 8700 foot in the Rockies it can be brutal. Just couldn't keep it warm. I moved it into a "kind of unused" room in my home. I built 2 different test stands after that, using modified torsion pendulum style designs. http://imgur.com/a/LSwQN

I see, did you consider covering the whole building with a "thermal coat" ? That would help quite a lot, I think ;)

Thanks for asking, sorry guys I promised I'd post more but sometimes I get very busy for a old lady. ;)

Don't worry, Shells, take your time, again, there's no hurry, I was just curious, nothing else :) !

Oh and please stop writing "old" otherwise you'll make me feel as old as "methuselah" :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/22/2017 09:45 PM
What if spacetime was quantized?

Thank you for resurrecting my post  I don't see why spacetime would not be quantized.

As for waves that move through a medium, consider ocean waves.  The water goes up and down, but the water does not move laterally.  Even in an electric current in a wire, the electrons do not flow from one end to the other like water through a pipe.  Instead one electron nudges another electron, which nudges the next one, and so on.  The wave of nudges propagates through the crystaline structure of the metallic wire, but the electrons hardly move at all. [Edit: the electrons do eventually get to the other end, but slowly.  You can walk faster.]

In the case of EM waves moving through 'empty' space it is not quite so obvious how it works.  The Michelson-Morely experiment did not prove that there is no transmission medium as some think, but as Einstein showed, various relativity factors make it impossible to directly detect such a medium even if it did exist!

There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms.  :)  [Amazing that I remember that number after 45 years...]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/23/2017 02:52 AM
(...) a few monopole related posts got banished into the aether -a shame because they were good though they were tangential to the topic.
Thanks Stormbringer, but I consider the fundamentals of particle interaction to be central to any argument about the origin of emdrive thrust. What if all photons are quantum leaps, then a Machian universe would make a great deal of sense and there would be something very real for the emdrive to gain momentum in reaction to. Quantum mechanics makes no claim to make sense but our universe should make sense, otherwise we really are trapped in Brama's dream. Not that I would mind if it were so, I just don't think it is so. Anyone who believes in logic has a duty to work toward an explanation for interaction which is seamless, preferably true, not reliant upon the logical gap that QM offers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 05/23/2017 06:12 AM
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on: 05/22/2017 09:45 PM
"There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms."

Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 AM
"What if spacetime was quantized?"

In the quest to quantize spacetime, has to start with the elementary particles, particularly the electron and photon and work their way down through small particles like gluons and the neutrino, and perhaps identify a sub particle zoo before one can claim spacetime.

The vacuum is not a void. We might have difficulty with measuring particles like the neutrinos let alone preventing or removing neutrinos from the vacuum. Until then, we only have a vacuum.

Quantizing space? Resonance is a sign of quantization. Perhaps spacetime itself resonant?  Wheeler-Feynman suggests that resonance might be across time, not just space. The future and past may participate in present forms of energy density such as mass and perhaps define charge.

One has to determine if the characteristic impedance of vacuum space can be reduced.  Can we drop the vacuum temperature to 0 degrees K and obtain 0 ohm resistance? We simply don't have a good grasp of how to engineer the vacuum just yet especially wrt the emDrive.

Then there is this pesky thing called charge. The electron represents charged mass although a ±1/3 charge quark might be more fundamental. The photon appears to represent uncharged massless energy until we look a bit closer. The photon appears to interact with spacetime.

Is the electron built from photon(s)?  That question leads to the photon and whatever that is made of. Could it be the photon is constructed from sub elementary particles. Some electron models suggest a quanta is the building block for the photon, and furthermore, the photon is the building block to an electron. So  a sub elementary particle set of {quanta} may be the fundamental building block.

Could the monopole be a missing particle we simply don't see? And what is the role of a magnetic monopole in quantizing spacetime, and with entanglement and action-at-a-distance.

The emdirve embraces the fundamentals of physics we know while pushing out the boundaries of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 05/23/2017 07:25 AM
Shells -

4 builds! Give us a clue - are you still looking for a signal outside the noise, do you have a signal and are optimising your design, are you characterising the effect in detail with a view to publishing, or something else?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 09:42 AM
The LimeSDR is built around the LMS7002D FPRF http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/ (http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/) which has built-in calibration features which I hope will be adequate for VNE calibration. It's got a build-in microcontroller and the LimeSDR has 256MB of RAM, so I think it likely that the VNE program is uploaded to the onboard RAM, run by the microcontroller, and results stored in that RAM. A user program would later download these to a PC via the USB3 port. Does the 12 bit DAC/ADC create a sufficiently clean signal? I don't know. I'll look at the resolution of what the SynthNV and MiniVNA have in their DAC and see how they compare, and may ask on some other forums as well.

I think you are absolutely correct about posting test equipment on the Wiki. That's what it is ideal for. 

As for VNAs, the PocketVNA (http://pocketvna.com/) is another interesting one; costs slightly more than the MiniVNA Tiny (around 430 USD) but its specifications (http://pocketvna.com/product/) are quite interesting; my only doubt about the device is related to sweep speed, the documents (http://pocketvna.com/help/hardware/) say that "A normal scan takes about 10 ms per data point plus communication. As an example a 1001 points scan takes 12 seconds." and also that "A 10001 steps scan take about 2 minutes", not sure how this compares with MiniVNA Tiny speeds

[edit]

Found a couple of pics of the PocketVNA board (here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/?action=dlattach;attach=248659;PHPSESSID=g62cbm2jsur7inbnapfqagokn5) and here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/?action=dlattach;attach=248661;PHPSESSID=g62cbm2jsur7inbnapfqagokn5)) in case someone is curious and there's a forum discussion about PocketVNA and TinyVNA mini here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/)





Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2017 01:27 PM
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on: 05/22/2017 09:45 PM
"There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms."

Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 AM
"What if spacetime was quantized?"

In the quest to quantize spacetime, has to start with the elementary particles, particularly the electron and photon and work their way down through small particles like gluons and the neutrino, and perhaps identify a sub particle zoo before one can claim spacetime.

The vacuum is not a void. We might have difficulty with measuring particles like the neutrinos let alone preventing or removing neutrinos from the vacuum. Until then, we only have a vacuum.

Quantizing space? Resonance is a sign of quantization. Perhaps spacetime itself resonant?  Wheeler-Feynman suggests that resonance might be across time, not just space. The future and past may participate in present forms of energy density such as mass and perhaps define charge.

One has to determine if the characteristic impedance of vacuum space can be reduced.  Can we drop the vacuum temperature to 0 degrees K and obtain 0 ohm resistance? We simply don't have a good grasp of how to engineer the vacuum just yet especially wrt the emDrive.

Then there is this pesky thing called charge. The electron represents charged mass although a ±1/3 charge quark might be more fundamental. The photon appears to represent uncharged massless energy until we look a bit closer. The photon appears to interact with spacetime.

Is the electron built from photon(s)?  That question leads to the photon and whatever that is made of. Could it be the photon is constructed from sub elementary particles. Some electron models suggest a quanta is the building block for the photon, and furthermore, the photon is the building block to an electron. So  a sub elementary particle set of {quanta} may be the fundamental building block.

Could the monopole be a missing particle we simply don't see? And what is the role of a magnetic monopole in quantizing spacetime, and with entanglement and action-at-a-distance.

The emdirve embraces the fundamentals of physics we know while pushing out the boundaries of physics.

Good ideas :) As for me I don't even think particles and subparticles are the most fundamental "objects" of the universe: they are rather the apparent consequence of more fundamental multidimensional "quantum entities" which compose spacetime (which are spacetime) and are the generator of all particles and their motion within our 4D+ space. Maybe we could use a quantum effect to macroscopically create any kind of particle from the "vacuum" and transform any particle into any other. Very speculative I know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 01:32 PM
Folks:

With Shell's latest updates on her lab build in CO as a reminder, I realized that I had not updated the build status of my new home lab here in Friendswood, TX.  I last gave a status back in February per the below post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1639119#msg1639119

Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab.  Either way I hope to be back in the testing business by the end of the year at the latest, for right now I'm supporting Jim Woodward's and Heidi Fearn's NASA/NIAC Phase-1 study on increasing their MEGA-drive thrust output and applying their MEGA-drive to an interstellar probe mission to the nearest stars from Earth.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/23/2017 02:06 PM
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 02:07 PM
Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab. 

Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction ....hmmm help me find something for the D, so that the acronym will be ASGARD :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/23/2017 02:14 PM
Shells -

4 builds! Give us a clue - are you still looking for a signal outside the noise, do you have a signal and are optimising your design, are you characterising the effect in detail with a view to publishing, or something else?
I am looking to publish results of my testing as I promised here. That said, it needs to be known that I have seen something and I even stated here I did. The thrust signatures have been large jerks although highly sporadic. With the limits being my lab equipment.

My goal hasn't changed in the almost 2 years I've been working on this and I said it on my go fund page in the first paragraph. (link bottom of page)

Quote
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

Whatever I can do to make that happen I'll do.

While Paul March Dr. Fern, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Rodal and many talented others work on the MEGA Mach effect drive. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
I'm pursuing another way to do about the same thing.  I believe that the Mach effect can be realized within the EM Drive functions. Paul March has said and others as well that it's different sides of the same coin. That's not to say that the EM Drive is only using the Mach effect as I believe other theories are coming into effect.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 05/23/2017 02:20 PM
Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab. 

Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction ....hmmm help me find something for the D, so that the acronym will be ASGARD :D

Domain, Domicile, Delve, Digs, Den, Department, Division
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 05/23/2017 02:37 PM
Development, as in R&D.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 05/23/2017 03:09 PM
Apprentice Sorcerer's Gravitational Advances -- Research Division

 ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 05/23/2017 04:18 PM
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 06:38 PM
So, Paul now you have quite a number of ideas and ... although I'd leave ASGARD to shells (due to height) it"s up to you ... and we'll probably have more ideas (e.g. EPOS ;D)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/23/2017 06:41 PM
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows immediately from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is not equal to the Ricci tensor.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)




Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  One can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.

Have you read this:  http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/03/guest-post-lance-dixon-on-calculating-amplitudes/

for N=8 a graviton's feynman diagram is the same as a double copy of a gluon valid to the fifth loop order and counting.

Quote
Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does. Although these relations could in principle have been discovered without unitarity-based methods, the power of the methods to provide very simple expressions, led people to find initial patterns, and then easily test the patterns in many other examples to gain confidence.

Not for nothing but there is a certain fringe kook (with the initials B.( or R. ) L. )who has claimed for decades that gravity and the strong force are the same force operating at different scales in relation to UFO conspiracy stuff.

He might be a kook but the folks mentioned in the article most certainly aren't kooks. Because:

Quote
This year’s Sakurai Prize of the American Physical Society, one of the most prestigious awards in theoretical particle physics, has been awarded to Zvi Bern, Lance Dixon, and David Kosower “for pathbreaking contributions to the calculation of perturbative scattering amplitudes, which led to a deeper understanding of quantum field theory and to powerful new tools for computing QCD processes.”
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 06:43 PM
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

tchernik:

"...and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves."

Please remember that the past and present news media around the world continue to push the "if it bleeds, it leads" headlines to sell "their" copy and their editor's and publishers political agenda on all sides.  What gets lost in the daily news grind is the fact that most humans are good, law abiding folks that just want to make a living and get along with their family, friends and neighbors, with as little fuss as possible.  So take heart that we will find a collective way to make our civilization work and work well for most of us, as we navigate our way into the future.

Ad Astra my friends!  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 06:49 PM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/23/2017 07:07 PM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.

I gave it a skim... the ratio of essay to data and math doesn't bode well.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/23/2017 08:21 PM
More delicious stuff:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-blackbody-spacetime-geometry-topology.html

Synopsis:  Gravity like force in blackbody radiation related to topology.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/23/2017 09:22 PM
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/23/2017 09:33 PM
All labs need a comfy chair, for all the waiting while things stabilize.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/24/2017 12:50 AM

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/24/2017 01:41 AM
(...)
I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab.
(...)
The problem with magical references is that they undermine credibility, which is not really what we need right now!
I received a well deserved slap on the wrist when I described Shawyer as having pulled a rabbit out of his hat. I vote for 'Gravity Reaction Lab'   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 03:31 AM
...

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.

Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 05/24/2017 03:51 AM
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D

I appreciate the strategic positioning of the fire extinguisher!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: 1 on 05/24/2017 04:16 AM
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D

I appreciate the strategic positioning of the fire extinguisher!

And that rug really ties the room together.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 05/24/2017 06:23 AM

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...


Nope, don't mind in the slightest!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:47 AM

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"

I think that the "Boson BBQ" may be more appropriate for Shells since, apparently, she likes roasting antennas  ;D ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 06:12 PM
Probably OT but eyeballing it, the document seems interesting so ... here we go

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/117/60001

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:03 PM
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

tchernik:

"...and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves."

Please remember that the past and present news media around the world continue to push the "if it bleeds, it leads" headlines to sell "their" copy and their editor's and publishers political agenda on all sides.  What gets lost in the daily news grind is the fact that most humans are good, law abiding folks that just want to make a living and get along with their family, friends and neighbors, with as little fuss as possible.  So take heart that we will find a collective way to make our civilization work and work well for most of us, as we navigate our way into the future.

Ad Astra my friends!  Paul M.
I've started calling my lab  "High Frontier Labs"

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 07:07 PM
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:23 PM
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
I was calling my lab this for quite some time... no offense. OK?
Hugs,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:30 PM
...

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.

Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 08:06 PM
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,

Yes,  but we need further theoretical and experimental work  :). 

Notsosureofit was working on it, a lot of this is tied with entropy.

The curvature of space can also be measured with entropy measures

(K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces, Acta Math. 196 (2006), n 1, 65–177. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891805 
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891806   )
 
The idea is that, in positive Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a sphere), “midpoints spread out”: if we take two geometrical measures in the curved 4 D spacetime surface, and consider the set of points that lie “halfway” between the two sets then the set of midpoints is wider than expected from the Euclidean (flat) case. (For example, on a sphere, the set of midpoints of the two poles will be the whole equator.)
 
The reverse is true for negative Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a saddle).
 
In the entropy approach one uses probability measures instead of geometrical measures in the  4 D spacetime surface. The extent to which they are spread can be evaluated using the relative entropy (the Kullback–Leibler divergence  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence ).
 
I wonder whether Notsosureofit did any further work?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:32 PM
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
I was calling my lab this for quite some time... no offense. OK?
Hugs,
Shell

Fine, lady, I just wanted to be sure ... language barriers (on my side) sometimes play bad jokes hugs from me too :) !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:37 PM
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 08:47 PM
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Not intentionally (not with the intention to achieve an express purpose) to my knowledge, except that magnetrons by their nature already contain amplitude, frequency and phase modulation
(http://198.74.50.173/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magic-ChefMagnetronOven2.45GHzSpectra-1.jpg)(http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-9801080%5C7aa0f806-9c62-4bf5-ae30-1c09e7756ab9.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 09:00 PM
Jose ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple or complex as you want)

[edit]

corrected the post, swapped Paul and Jose  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 05/25/2017 02:52 AM
Paul ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple ir complex you want)
Good question. I have been thinking about interference and propagation.
 
If you have two diametrically opposed identical injection points pumping out square waves with peak and trough perfectly matched and coherent then you could increase the average density of the resulting wave packets through constructive interference (some people argue it is already occurring in the cavity). Also this assumes minimal splatter and noise. Ultimately, such an interference pattern would just increase the efficiency of the energy input as each injection point uses half (or less) of the wattage, together they produce areas with a combined higher amplitude wave perhaps proving useful if energy requirements are insufficiently met by say solar panels in deep space.

Other waveforms you could consider are using a (or multiple superimposed) chirped pulses to change the shape of the power (and loading) graph or perhaps test whether pulsing the cavity with energy is the only factor in thrust. The time dependent average of the input should be a relatively flat net positive oscillating sinusoidal shape though choosing chirp length or the quantity of superimposed chirps can change the shape of the wave considerably, allowing for on-the-go adjustments or periodic oscillations to waveform (and eigenmodes!). You could get creative with it. Which makes me wonder what would happen if you took a metallic toroid and excited a series of chirped waves in it. Would it still act as a time crystal even if the amplitude of the wave in the interference pattern periodically changed? I mean to say the pattern would result in a constant positive but changing superposition of the two waves. I know it has to do with the quantum system correlation and the time-evolution is not dependent on a particular wave-function but rather their superposition, but different superpositions should result in different time evolutions and clock rate peaks, shouldn't it*? This hasn't been empirically tested before. If the negative wave component is unnecessary to keep the differently wound phases coherent in a metallic ring then what does that imply for metallic and symmetric resonant cavities? Controversial thought: is the EM Drive thrust simply the decay of a coherent system and the phase of the system briefly exceeds the physical motion creating a time translation symmetry breaking event. I don't think it is currently, but once we make higher quality super-cooled less noisy cavities, then suddenly we have to consider these quantum effects, especially when interference patterns occur due to multiple inputs. Might also be interesting for nanocavity research. Not implying any FTL=phase velocity=group velocity fallacies, just curious about the behaviour of particles in closed metallic paths under multiple simultaneous inputs. Likely, this is all unrealistic, as the cavity is far too messy and imperfect - not to mention the numerous possibilities for diffraction, etc - but even if it decoheres quickly, there must be a short window in which such symmetry breaking occurs periodically and/or randomly.       

Among other papers you should know this one on time crystals... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08001v4.pdf
Also see this paper regarding the stability of minkowski space... https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0408073v1.pdf

It is wise to accept the strange reality of gravitational waves and negative energy creating anisotropic energy dispersion. Especially curious how the above linked theory "disproves" negative energy. It is very interesting to spend time thinking about small wave packets which are 'isolated' from the rest of the phase and which carry a negative density. Would they induce time lag, decohere systems, interact with the system or would the system mostly 'ignore' it like a bug on a windscreen or an unwelcome rogue ion? Imagine 4 Chlorine ions in a n-sized-ring of Aluminum for example. I am curious about a wave form which, for example, has null points at those parts of the molecular chain. See the attached paper for an example of huge bond variations and consider what sort of interesting effects you could achieve if you repeated rings such as this throughout a hypothetical cavity. Surely a stack of such rings would result in a metamaterial with different charged regions. Put one of the negatively charged regions next to a modal peak and instant faster thrusting (or less thrusting due to less, in terms of total #, though stronger gravity gradients)??? Perhaps somebody could venture a guess.   

Just some thoughts, hopefully they make sense.

*Also, what if the superimposed waves were negative as discussed towards the end, as far as I understand it shouldn't matter for symmetry breaking. Even if that is the case wouldn't the gravity tensor alter the electron density at the outer skin, destabilizing the flow and decohering the entire system? Even if this is wrong, at the very least I'm surprised I haven't seen any discussion on this anywhere.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: masterharper1082 on 05/25/2017 03:55 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.

I gave it a skim... the ratio of essay to data and math doesn't bode well.  ;D
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/25/2017 10:17 AM
Paul ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple ir complex you want)
Good question. I have been thinking about interference and propagation.

same line of thought here, I was thinking about interferences as well
 
If you have two diametrically opposed identical injection points pumping out square waves with peak and trough perfectly matched and coherent then you could increase the average density of the resulting wave packets through constructive interference (some people argue it is already occurring in the cavity).

not just square waves, by the way, for example an overposition of square and sine waves may be interesting, but then it will be needed to experiment to find out if and how different waveforms alter the EMdrive cavity behavior

Also this assumes minimal splatter and noise. Ultimately, such an interference pattern would just increase the efficiency of the energy input as each injection point uses half (or less) of the wattage, together they produce areas with a combined higher amplitude wave perhaps proving useful if energy requirements are insufficiently met by say solar panels in deep space.

Same thought, although, again, at the moment it's just "fried air" without any kind of evidence, that's why I asked if someone already tried exploring (even just using simulations) such an approach

Other waveforms you could consider are using a (or multiple superimposed) chirped pulses to change the shape of the power (and loading) graph or perhaps test whether pulsing the cavity with energy is the only factor in thrust. The time dependent average of the input should be a relatively flat net positive oscillating
[...]
Among other papers you should know this one on time crystals... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08001v4.pdf
Also see this paper regarding the stability of minkowski space... https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0408073v1.pdf
[...]

snipped more interesting stuff, need some time to digest the ideas and the papers, thanks for those

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 05/25/2017 03:34 PM
Re: Ricci tensor & Einstein tensor. Having finally located my notes, one can quickly show that Rμν=0 ⇔ Gμν=0

By definition, Rμν= Gμν +½(gμνR)    Rμν=0 ⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Gμν=0

But the trace of the Einstein tensor is G=-R  So Gμν=0 ⇒G=0⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Rμν=0

I can say this with some feeling as a guy who calculated the tensor in detail in a free-space solution before the slap-the-forehead moment...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/25/2017 05:32 PM
Just tried an ixquick (http://www.ixquick.com) search for "microwave cavity interference pattern" (w/o quotes) and got back some interestng results ... ranging from Darthmouth to Stuttgart, worth a seekout imVVHo
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 05/25/2017 10:31 PM

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...


Nope, don't mind in the slightest!

I'd be more worried about Loki!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/26/2017 02:31 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/26/2017 05:29 PM
FYI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03118.pdf

Entropy theorems in classical mechanics, general relativity, and the gravitational
two-body problem

(Dated: August 30, 2016)

"In classical Hamiltonian theories, entropy may be understood either as a statistical property of
canonical systems, or as a mechanical property, that is, as a monotonic function of the phase space
along trajectories. In classical mechanics, there are theorems which have been proposed for proving
the non-existence of entropy in the latter sense. We explicate, clarify and extend the proofs of these
theorems to some standard matter (scalar and electromagnetic) field theories in curved spacetime,
and then we show why these proofs fail in general relativity; due to properties of the gravitational
Hamiltonian and phase space measures, the second law of thermodynamics holds. As a concrete
application, we focus on the consequences of these results for the gravitational two-body problem,
and in particular, we prove the non-compactness of the phase space of perturbed SchwarzschildDroste
spacetimes. We thus identify the lack of recurring orbits in phase space as a distinct sign of
dissipation and hence entropy production."

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/28/2017 06:39 AM
<puts on experimenter's cap>
How about going for the best and highest Q, before testing for acceleration? But at what frequency? People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?) Why not use some frequency a bit lower? Maybe just below it in the 2300-2310 Mhz band (Amateur), or a lot lower at 1240-1300 Mhz (also Amateur).  Might make VNA analysis more precise, but at the expense of larger cavities.

Also, I haven't given up the idea of metal spinning on a high-accuracy & precision CNC spinning lathe. I think it's impractical for me to try to acquire the tools and learn the practice myself, especially as I live in an area with many small metal shops - one of them is likely to do decent spin-forming.  Of course, for high-Q I'd then want to go for superconducting end plates which is a bit more daunting.

I am just raising some ideas up the flagpole here, to see if anyone salutes, to use the old expression.

By the way, I have moved to Westfield, Mass. If anyone on this forum is in the general area it would be great to get together and toss ideas back and forth.

<takes off experimenter's cap, dons theoretician's hat>
In case any of you are interested, I find myself becoming more convinced of Dr. Mike McCullough's theories. Quantum inertia, horizon mechanics, whatever you want to call it. Ockham's razor etc.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I am more interested in experimentation than theory, but only because I think that good experiments are in short supply.

<takes off hat, does not don another>

For you in the USA, I hope you have a happy holiday weekend. I spent much of today hiking in the woods, fighting mud, mosquitoes, and high humidity. I'd really like to find a place for a good fire pit on Monday, but it seems unlikely, and useless as rain is predicted.

--RWK
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/28/2017 07:43 AM
<puts on experimenter cap>
Going for the best and highest Q, before testing for acceleration? But at what frequency? People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?) Why not use something a bit lower? Maybe just below it in the 2300-2310 Mhz band (Amateur), or a lot lower at 1240-1300 Mhz (also Amateur).  Might make VNE analysis more precise, but at the expense of larger cavities.

Also, I haven't given up the idea of metal spinning on a high-accuracy & precision CNC spinning lathe. I think it's impractical for me to try to acquire the tools and learn the practice myself, especially as I live in an area with many small metal shops - one of them is likely to do decent spin-forming.  Of course, for high-Q I'd then want to go for superconducting end plates which is a bit more daunting.

I am just raising some ideas up the flagpole here, to see if anyone salutes.

By the way, I have moved to Westfield, Mass. If anyone on this forum is in the general area it would be great to get together and toss ideas back and forth.

<takes off experimenter cap, dons theoreticians hat>
In case any of you are interested, I find myself becoming more convinced of Dr. Mike McCullough's theories. Quantum inertia, horizon mechanics, whatever you want to call it. Ockham's razor etc.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I am more interested in experimentation than theory, but only because I think that good experiments are in short supply.

<takes off hat, does not don another>

For you in the USA, I hope you have a happy holiday weekend. I spend much of today hiking in the woods, fighting mud, mosquitoes, and high humidity. I'd really like to find a place for a good fire pit on Monday, but it seems unlikely, and useless as rain is predicted.

--RWK
RW if you ever make it to Oregon, I'd be happy to show you some hikes. I'm old and disabled and can't hike any more, but I can show you some great places, and some great beer to boot.


Ditto for the rest of you. Coming this way, let me know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 05/28/2017 08:19 AM
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
The price to pay for these situations where space-time curvature occurs even when there is no stress energy-momentum tensor distribution, is that it is impossible to say where the corresponding gravitational energy is localized (this is the energy pseudo-tensor usually associated to gravitational waves).

These pseudo-tensors have some rather strange properties.  If "wrong" coordinates are chosen then the energy pseudo-tensors is non-zero even in flat empty spacetime.  By another choice of coordinates, they can be made zero at any chosen point, even in a spacetime full of gravitational radiation.  So the pseudo-tensors are not able to provide a good local definition of energy density, although their integrals are sometimes useful as a measure of total energy.

One other point on which the energy pseudo-tensor (gravitational energy) differs from classical energy/matter is that it cannot act  itself as a source of gravity as modelised by Einstein fundamental equation of General Relativity (G = 8 Pi  T). The only indirect way by which it can act as a source of gravity modification is through the non-linearity of the Einstein Field Equations which govern the space-time curvature evolution (propagation phenomena where for example a gravitational wave interacts with the local background curvature of space-time).

So in General relativity ther are several "kind" of energy and there is generaly speaking, no overall conservation law  encompassing all these kinds of energy. It is only in very special situation where space-time geometry has specific boundary conditions that overall energy conservation can have a meaning (this is linked to the possibilty then to apply famous Noether theorems)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/28/2017 08:49 AM

RW if you ever make it to Oregon, I'd be happy to show you some hikes. I'm old and disabled and can't hike any more, but I can show you some great places, and some great beer to boot.


Ditto for the rest of you. Coming this way, let me know.

The invitation is appreciated, and reciprocated. I have a whole list of people, from Albany to Portland, in Oregon that I need to take up on their offers to visit. Oregonian beer culture is well renowned, but I wonder if I could find a brew out there without the huge amount of hops that I typically see, and which interfere with my digestion.

As to my Westfield, I am new to the precise area, but it is part of Western Mass that I know very well, being a native. Westfield has two airbases nearby, one gun manufacturer (Savage), and along history of metalworking (due to its close proximity to the former Springfield Armory). It is known as 'the whip city', because of its ancient dominance in manufacture of buggy whips, and was also home to Columbia bicycles. It is currently home to a state university, formerly a teachers school. and not far from the campus of the University of Massachusetts (in Amherst) as well as a smattering of other colleges.

My situation in it is my own company/lab, which is primarily focused on 3D printing, but has enough room for my many other interests. Once I have some substatial EMdrive-related facilities, I will post some bragging pictures, but the factory/lab/office is in an industrial area about three miles from the apartment I live in, and is a bit dingy compared to what SeeShells has.

as a side note, I own a fairly large (5500+ sf) but dilapidated building in the city I used to live in (Pittsfield) which I would gladly donate to some good use, such as an NPO for Emdrive research. But it would require at least $25,000 to get it to adequate state to be used. It's got 3-phase 220V, so that's a plus. Consider this a notice to anyone who is in need of a space and can sink the work & money into it; there might be grants / loans available to make it happen. I really need to do something with the building soon, so any proposals, no matter how incomplete, should be discussed soon before I sell it at auction and take a huge loss.

Anyhow, I want to return the focus of this list to its major technical focus, and encourage people with proposals or plans to meet up to contact me through the private message facility here. This goes for business regarding to my 3D printing business as well.

--RWK, at nearly dawn
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/28/2017 02:48 PM
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Not intentionally (not with the intention to achieve an express purpose) to my knowledge, except that magnetrons by their nature already contain amplitude, frequency and phase modulation
(http://198.74.50.173/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magic-ChefMagnetronOven2.45GHzSpectra-1.jpg)(http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-9801080%5C7aa0f806-9c62-4bf5-ae30-1c09e7756ab9.jpg)
Dr. Rodal,

I go back to a time I learned the basics of electronics with tubes, transistors where the new wonder toy IC's were stuff of dreams. The magnetron is nothing but a tube that self excites to produce microwaves. This isn't rocket science but tube science. Tubes are still around and still are used in the semiconductor industry where signal splatter and jitter have to be tightly controlled.

This is the one of the first articles I ran across that reinforced what I knew of tubes and what caused issues. http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/

I was able to build a thermally stabilized water cooled current and voltage controlled supply locked into Fo by the use of a waveguide > antenna this gave me a very stable signal with no AM jitters and side lobes.
(http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/magn2.jpg)

It's not entirely true that a magnetron is nasty noisy and unusable as a RF device it's just tougher to do than a lower wattage SS device.

I do plan to go to a SS device sometime in the near future although for now the toughness of a magnetron tube and support hardware suits what I'm doing quite well and if I do blow it up and make matchstick from magic smoke it's a less than 50 bucks to replace it.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: Currently I'm getting all the machinery setup and oiled and checked out as some stuff I've had in storage. Ran air into the tool room yesterday and today start hauling all the drills, nuts bolts and setting up all the bins for my nuts, screws, drill buts, washers in about a 100 little bins. Guarantee you I'll be ready to fire up the grill later to burn up something and wash it down with a frothy brew after.  8)

PSS: Sticky Shift key LeFt Caps on aNd Off hapHazardly, need a new KB. Fixed it I hope.

One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 05/28/2017 04:28 PM
Shell,

You could always go to a klystron.

D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/28/2017 04:40 PM
Shell,

You could always go to a klystron.

D
I'll take the 250Kw one right behind me at the SSC.  :o
Added: I debated at first look, but magnetrons were easier to come by.
Best,
Shell
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5230204_1436438764.938.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/28/2017 08:34 PM
People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: 1 on 05/29/2017 01:03 AM

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"

I think that the "Boson BBQ" may be more appropriate for Shells since, apparently, she likes roasting antennas  ;D ;D

ħ & Grill
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/29/2017 01:10 AM
People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
That's why my was cooled.

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/30/2017 01:36 AM
I wanted to suggest or ask if the EM drive may be squeezing light inside.  The apparent wavelength at the large end appears to have a shorter wavelength while at the narrow end of the frustum a longer wavelength along the frustum symmetric axis.  Perpendicular to this axis it was brought to my atention some time ago that the wavelength while at the narrow end appears longer along the axis, perpendicular to the axis the wavelength appears to be shorter than at the large end. 

So to summarize if z axis is the axis of the frustum then
wavelength at large end (z-axis: shorter, x-y-axis more relaxed/longer)
wavelength at narrow end (z-axis: longer, x-y-axis more compact/shorter)

I have been thinking about squeezed light for some time and LIGO's use of it to detect gravitational waves.  My thoughts were, squeezed light may be necessary to detect such gravitational waves as to increase interaction with the vacuum.  Along that line of thought, to cause light to interact with the vacuum may require squeezed states. 

Now I'lll share one power point that glosses over squeezed states and its connection with negative energy which may have been shared by some one else but I can't remember where I got this link: http://old.earthtech.org/reports/Davis-Puthoff_STAIF_Neg.Energ.Lab.Exp.pdf

Quote
Squeezed Electromagnetic Vacuum:
...
-One can "squeeze" variance of one observable provided variance in conjugate observable is stretched

- Observable that gets squeezed will have its fluctuations reduced below the vacuum ZPF

o Since the vacuum is defined to have vanishing energy density, any region with less energy density than the vacuum actually has a negative (renormalized) expectation value for the energy density

So is it possible there could be squeezed light near the narrow region.  Is there a measurement that could detect such squeezed light?  I believe there is some factor where a squeezed state becomes more certain about one aspect while becoming more uncertain about another.  similar to this article here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/sep/12/squeezed-light... (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/sep/12/squeezed-light-shatters-previous-record-for-manipulating-quantum-uncertainty)

Quote
The uncertainty principle puts a lower limit on the product of the variance in the amplitude (or number) of photons and the variance in the phase. Vacuum photons naturally have equal variance in both amplitude and phase. It is, however, possible to create a "squeezed state" of light, in which either one of these quantities is minimized (squeezed) and the other is allowed to increase (antisqueezed).

also it may be possible we want at least 2 frequencies involved.  Here is why and possibly the magnetron putting out both of these frequencies may be desirable?  Is it desirable for the cavity to have 2 resonant frequencies close together both excited by the magnetron? 

Quote
The Hannover team has now improved several aspects of its instrumentation. Most significantly, they have used a new, doubly resonant cavity: "You need two wavelengths to generate the squeezed light and we had a resonator that was resonant for both," explains team member Moritz Mehmet. In addition, says his teammate Henning Vahlbruch, they upgraded several other features: "We used the best available materials, a different cavity topology and custom-made photodetectors." The researchers broke their own record, squeezing vacuum photons by a factor of 32.

Normally I have heard squeezed states have commonly been accomplished with a crystal/accelerated mirror, but above they mention a cavity and I wonder if it's possible to accomplish squeezed states with just a cavity. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 05/30/2017 05:02 AM
@dustinthewind
I don't know how meaningful it is but here is what meep indicates regarding resonant frequencies in a particular cavity. This is Monomorphic's DUT, in copper with two detector locations. Each is located 4 mm from the inside face of the respective end, and half the small end radius from the z-axis of rotation offset equally in x and y. If you need the imaginary component of frequency, I can provide the complete output including a ton of significant digits in a spreadsheet, if you would like.

I note that the ez component contains very little energy but what is there is enough to satisfy meep and is reported. As I understand it, no energy in the ez component is a characteristic of a TE mode of resonance.

freq.   GHz   Q   Amp   Amp SI   Comp   freq. Diff.   end
2451314734.6915   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ex   0   SE
                     
2451314734.69151   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ey   0   SE
                     
2441943271.04085   2.44194   -13,481   0.00000   2.07E-15   ez      SE
2451262522.54508   2.45126   968   0.00000   5.29E-15   ez      SE
2465495123.57696   2.46550   2,452   0.00000   9.35E-15   ez      SE
                     
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531   hx   0   SE
                     
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531   hy   0   SE
                     
2451315922.70902   2.45132   35,431   0.36909   0.36909   hz   0   SE
                     
2451314755.05473   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ex   -20.36323452   BE
                     
2451314755.05472   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ey   -20.3632049561   BE
                     
2451571816.19804   2.45157   560   0.00000   5.54E-14   ez      BE
2457576614.11381   2.45758   313   0.00000   2.48E-13   ez      BE
2465596829.68202   2.46560   5,955   0.00000   1.50E-14   ez      BE
                     
2451315943.00494   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483   hx   10.2538976669   BE
                     
2451315943.00495   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483   hy   10.2538948059   BE
                     
2451316625.84456   2.45132   35,418   0.07332   0.07332   hz   -703.1355333328   BE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/30/2017 09:19 AM
(...)
One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Shell,
that O-scope may have been built in Guernsey C.I. off the coast of France (where I grew up!)   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/30/2017 09:59 AM
"Seeking the fifth force"

While it may be unrelated (and possibly off-topic) to EMdrive, I think that this research initiative may be of interest for the people on this forum

"Physicists Are Probing The Centre of Our Galaxy to Find The Missing Fifth Force of Nature" (http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-are-probing-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-to-find-the-missing-fifth-force-of-nature)

also because it's an attempt to (better) understand gravity :)

detailed informations can be found here (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211101)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/30/2017 10:30 AM

freq.                GHz       Q       Amp       Amp SI   Comp   freq. Diff.   end
2451314734.6915    2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ex             0     SE
2451314734.69151   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ey             0     SE
2441943271.04085   2.44194  -13,481   0.00000   2.07E-15   ez                   SE
2451262522.54508   2.45126  968       0.00000   5.29E-15   ez                   SE
2465495123.57696   2.46550    2,452   0.00000   9.35E-15   ez                   SE
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531    hx             0     SE
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531    hy             0     SE
2451315922.70902   2.45132   35,431   0.36909   0.36909    hz             0     SE
2451314755.05473   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ex  -20.36323452     BE
2451314755.05472   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ey  -20.3632049561   BE
2451571816.19804   2.45157  560       0.00000   5.54E-14   ez                   BE
2457576614.11381   2.45758  313       0.00000   2.48E-13   ez                   BE
2465596829.68202   2.46560    5,955   0.00000   1.50E-14   ez                   BE
2451315943.00494   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483    hx   10.2538976669   BE
2451315943.00495   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483    hy   10.2538948059   BE
2451316625.84456   2.45132   35,418   0.07332   0.07332    hz -703.1355333328   BE


just trying to improve readability :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/30/2017 12:40 PM
(...)
One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Shell,
that O-scope may have been built in Guernsey C.I. off the coast of France (where I grew up!)   :)
Considering I cut my teeth on an old 555 dual trace. :) It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.
(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)

Still getting the shop straightened up and still need to move some of the cabinets out to make space for the lab benches and tidy up the other half of the space.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:23 AM
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:36 AM
@dustinthewind

Yes, you are right. Feynman discusses this in his great book, the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 2, and he's very good at explaining it in a way that makes sense.  It's called the guide wavelength. In a waveguide, like a fiberoptic cable or an resonance cavity, the interaction with the walls causes an interference pattern that behaves as if the light has a longer wavelength and the same frequency, causing a strange effect as the "phase velocity" and the "group velocity" of the light to go out of sync.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/31/2017 05:19 AM
@dustinthewind

Yes, you are right. Feynman discusses this in his great book, the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 2, and he's very good at explaining it in a way that makes sense.  It's called the guide wavelength. In a waveguide, like a fiberoptic cable or an resonance cavity, the interaction with the walls causes an interference pattern that behaves as if the light has a longer wavelength and the same frequency, causing a strange effect as the "phase velocity" and the "group velocity" of the light to go out of sync.

c=f*lambda->f=c/lambda  with f constant and lambda growing larger then c must become larger which maybe suggests a decrease in the effective mass of light near the cutoff.  (considering momentum conservation if mass decreases then phase velocity should increase - phase being the individual photon, group being the collective behavior) . 
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics
Its not obvious with the equation E=h*f because f is constant and effective mass E/c^2 but E/c^2=m_eff=h*c/(lambda*c^2)=h*f/c^2  If both c and lambda increase then it suggests the effective mass decreases.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60441/does-a-photon-have-mass

This means in a collision the photon transfers less kinetic energy to the narrow end of the cavity as it does the large side.   ... Maybe.  Proof is in the pudding. 

I haven't done much on it recently but I think it still needs more work.  https://www.researchgate.net/project/Is-the-frustum-EM-Drive4-decelerating-light-for-propellantless-propulsion

light carries lots of energy but little momentum can be harnessed from it due the ridiculous small effective mass.  Part of the heat death of the universe.  It would be nice if there was a way to re-collect that energy in an effective manner. 

The question comes up if we can drain energy from the light in one direction how does this conserve momentum.  Not sure but there is known the be a Lens Thirring effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession where the vacuum can appear to be in motion around a rotating object. 

Also a Doppler shift from a photon impacting and object and transferring energy tends to red-shift the photon as a 2nd order effect that I derive in the paper on researchgate.  The light appears to undergo a change in frame.  If the light was pushed on before the reflection it would appear to be pushed against but what is light.  Maybe it is a disturbance of the quantum vacuum so could pushing against light be pushing against the QV? 

Why is it a disturbance of the Quantum Vacuum?  If you let and electron-positron pair annihilate light is generated from them coming together.  Now reverse time and let the light come together and you get the particles back.  Imagine an e-p pair in the vacuum together and you get (zero rest mass) just like light. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:12 PM
I have not had a chance to read your papers yet, but in regards to the change in speed, yes, sort of. The velocity that increases is the "phase velocity"; another speed called the "group velocity" is actually lower. There's a good graphic about the difference on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity). Because it is not the velocity of the photons themselves, it's not clear whether Planck's constant can be used with it, since it isn't quantised energy packets like a photon. Obviously, the whole is a bit up in the air because of this device, but I think observed thrust is in the direction of the small end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/31/2017 07:09 PM
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.

On Thread 3, two years ago, 06/21/2015 08:07 PM, I posted:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1392223#msg1392223


with this attachment report, titled:

Cut-off of Resonant Modes in Truncated Conical Cavities:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954;sess=45576
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/31/2017 09:07 PM
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.

On Thread 3, two years ago, 06/21/2015 08:07 PM, I posted:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1392223#msg1392223


with this attachment report, titled:

Cut-off of Resonant Modes in Truncated Conical Cavities:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954;sess=45576
Because of your write up we did sims in meep with an extended frustum cavity past cutoff to see if it did indeed act the way you wrote. It does.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 03:17 AM
I have not had a chance to read your papers yet, but in regards to the change in speed, yes, sort of. The velocity that increases is the "phase velocity"; another speed called the "group velocity" is actually lower. There's a good graphic about the difference on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity). Because it is not the velocity of the photons themselves, it's not clear whether Planck's constant can be used with it, since it isn't quantised energy packets like a photon. Obviously, the whole is a bit up in the air because of this device, but I think observed thrust is in the direction of the small end.

Problem is the group velocity of purely reflected light in the cavity would be standing still because of it being a standing wave.  I don't think we can think of the photons as standing.  Also if their wavelength stretches out with out their frequency changing then their velocity must increase. 

There is some traveling group waves due to energy loss, but I still have my reservations as qualifying the group waves as the photons.  There may be some Merritt to it.  I'll give it some thought. 

If we consider a photon recycling thruster we can get what appears to be a standing wave but once the mirror starts accelerating there should be 2nd order Doppler shifting via transferred energy so that also sets up a difference in frequency traveling wave. 

With out the mirror moving, perfectly collimated light, and hypothetically negligible heat loss there should still be large pressure via the photons while sustaining what appears to be a standing group wave so I have a hard time distinguishing which wave really defines the photon (group or phase).  I wan't to say phase but not exactly sure.  Also the phase waves in superpositions make up the group wave behavior which is similar to light which in superpositions makes up the sum. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 06/01/2017 05:11 AM
@dustinthewind - Well, in a standing wave the phase velocity is 0, too. :)

@SeeShells - Thanks! That's amazing. I appreciate it very much and let me know if you want to be a part of the the launch project.

@Rodal - That's great! I gave it one read through, and I know it'll need some time to digest it. One thing that I know I will be paying attention to is conclusion #8; to my reading, Shawyer's equation does not predict that thrust is maximized by a greatest difference between the plate sizes (while McCulloch obviously does). He predicts that thrust is maximized for a given large plate by the small plate being as close to the cut-off as possible. That is the point where the guide wavelength goes to infinity and that term, lambda0/lambdag2, goes to 0. It is one of the things my paper for the Smallsat Conference is going to list as one of the testable predictions I would like to gather data around, with future fundraising: Shawyer suggests that thrust is maximized as we approach cut-off, and McCulloch predicts thrust is maximized when the small plate is infinitely small and cut-off is an unavoidable prohibition preventing greater efficiency.

I think this is why the Eagleworks found greater thrust in the TM mode than in the TE mode; with a larger cut-off diameter in the TM mode, the small plate in the cavity was closer to the TM mode cut-off when resonating in the TM mode than the small plate was to the TE mode cut-off when resonating in the TE mode. I wish they had released those numbers; that's almost as important as their thrust measurements, to my mind. I'm not sure what the conditions were for those tests. I wonder if a cavity with a small plate close to the TE mode cut-off resonating in TE mode would have as great a thrust as a cavity with a small plate equally close to the TM mode cut-off resonating in the TM mode. I'm fascinated that the Shawyer equation predicts the TM/TE mode difference (once I knew there was one; I didn't predict it in advance).

If I am repeating what everyone already knows, I apologize.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 05:25 AM
@dustinthewind - Well, in a standing wave the phase velocity is 0, too. :)

...

Quote from: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/speed-of-stationary-wave-in-a-string.729703/
Think of a stationary wave as the sum of two travelling waves. If the two waves move in opposite directions and have the same frequency, the result is a stationary wave. The travelling waves have a well defined speed (or phase velocity). You're allowed to do this because of the principle of superposition.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/01/2017 11:01 AM
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/01/2017 04:42 PM
FYI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03118.pdf

Entropy theorems in classical mechanics, general relativity, and the gravitational
two-body problem

(Dated: August 30, 2016)

"In classical Hamiltonian theories, entropy may be understood either as a statistical property of
canonical systems, or as a mechanical property, that is, as a monotonic function of the phase space
along trajectories. In classical mechanics, there are theorems which have been proposed for proving
the non-existence of entropy in the latter sense. We explicate, clarify and extend the proofs of these
theorems to some standard matter (scalar and electromagnetic) field theories in curved spacetime,
and then we show why these proofs fail in general relativity; due to properties of the gravitational
Hamiltonian and phase space measures, the second law of thermodynamics holds. As a concrete
application, we focus on the consequences of these results for the gravitational two-body problem,
and in particular, we prove the non-compactness of the phase space of perturbed SchwarzschildDroste
spacetimes. We thus identify the lack of recurring orbits in phase space as a distinct sign of
dissipation and hence entropy production."

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Thank you, Notsosureofit.   The fact that entropy of bodies attracted by gravitation can increase purely due to dynamic movement of the bodies (without friction or other forms of dissipation being present) is something that escapes many people's attention.

Perhaps one way to visualize this is to think about the 3 body problem, and the N- body problem.  It is only under certain conditions, for some finite amount of time (albeit a very long time compared with life) that one can have low-entropy solutions: stable elliptical orbits of planets around the Sun, stable orbits of moons around planets.  Over the long-term the stability of these planets and these moons will be perturbed and they will cease to be stable, for example the planets falling into the Sun or a moon escaping a planet (thus entropy will increase).  The range of dynamic solutions that are stable decreases with the number of gravitational bodies involved.  Therefore, for example, in the Hoyle-Narlikar model, inertia of a body is conferred by the gravitational effect of all the other bodies in the Universe.  If one fluctuates the energy in a body at a frequency omega, a small fluctuating mass density will result (Woodward's hypothesis) and if one rectifies this fluctuation by superposing another fluctuation at a superharmonic 2 omega, then an acceleration of the center of mass can occur due to the shift in the center of mass.  The momentum and energy associated with this acceleration is balanced by the (infinitesimally small in comparison) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe (responsible for conferring the inertial mass to the object).  What the paper you mentioned shows, is that this  (infinitesimally small) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe must be accompanied by an increase in entropy of the universe.  This must follow, because as one perturbs the dynamic equilibrium of N bodies in gravitation, the entropy of the universe must increase. 

This increase in entropy of the universe due to dynamic perturbation of the motion of the N bodies, is not due to any friction (any such frictional losses are in addition to this effect) but due to the fact that gravitation of many bodies is a dynamically unstable problem.  (We are fooled by thinking about the stability of planets and moons, and satellites: we also have to think about the whole range of possible motions that lead to instability and hence to a dynamic configuration that is less orderly and hence has increased entropy).

Thus, there are at least two kinds of entropy being ignored by those maintaining that there is boundless free-energy to be extracted: the entropy of the Machian drive (as entropy of a material being vibrated increases, due to dissipation of heat) and the entropy of the universe also must increase (as shown in the paper you posted).  There is no free lunch.

If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).
(http://images.slideplayer.com/25/7945386/slides/slide_20.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Restricted_Three-Body_Problem_-_Energy_Potential_Analysis.png/1024px-Restricted_Three-Body_Problem_-_Energy_Potential_Analysis.png)
(http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_large/public/images/sn-threebody.jpg?itok=JvXNVSKM)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/01/2017 05:09 PM
...

Perhaps one way to visualize this is to think about the 3 body problem, and the N- body problem.  It is only under certain conditions, for some finite amount of time (albeit a very long time compared with life) that one can have low-entropy solutions: stable elliptical orbits of planets around the Sun, stable orbits of moons around planets.  Over the long-term the stability of these planets and these moons will be perturbed and they will cease to be stable, for example the planets falling into the Sun or a moon escaping a planet (thus entropy will increase).  The range of dynamic solutions that are stable decreases with the number of gravitational bodies involved.  Therefore, for example, in the Hoyle-Narlikar model, inertia of a body is conferred by the gravitational effect of all the other bodies in the Universe.  If one fluctuates the energy in a body at a frequency omega, a small fluctuating mass density will result (Woodward's hypothesis) and if one rectifies this fluctuation by superposing another fluctuation at a superharmonic 2 omega, then an acceleration of the center of mass can occur due to the shift in the center of mass.  The momentum and energy associated with this acceleration is balanced by the (infinitesimally small in comparison) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe (responsible for conferring the inertial mass to the object).  What the paper you mentioned shows, is that this  (infinitesimally small) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe must be accompanied by an increase in entropy of the universe.  This must follow, because as one perturbs the dynamic equilibrium of N bodies in gravitation, the entropy of the universe must increase. 

This increase in entropy of the universe due to dynamic perturbation of the motion of the N bodies, is not due to any friction (any such frictional losses are in addition to this effect) but due to the fact that gravitation of many bodies is a dynamically unstable problem.  (We are fooled by thinking about the stability of planets and moons, and satellites: we also have to think about the whole range of possible motions that lead to instability and hence to a dynamic configuration that is less orderly and hence has increased entropy).

Thus, there are at least two kinds of entropy being ignored by those maintaining that there is boundless free-energy to be extracted: the entropy of the Machian drive (as entropy of a material being vibrated increases, due to dissipation of heat) and the entropy of the universe also must increase (as shown in the paper you posted).  There is no free lunch.

If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).

Very good and clear explanation for the lay person.

If I understand well, and if the MEGA/Emdrive thrusters have any kind of physical validity, then they could be indeed used for getting useful thrust and speeds (e.g. for space ships), seemingly getting more energy in the form of kinetic energy than the one we spend on making them active.

Because the energy making them move is not from the energy we used to catalyze the reactions actually making them move. It comes from the distant part of the cosmos these systems are inextricably linked to, like everything else.

But the universal accounting book remains balanced and with an ever growing entropy. We are simply taking energy from the distant bodies of the universe, in infinitesimal amounts but very measurable at the local level, which is the one we are interested in.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/01/2017 05:46 PM
Re: Ricci tensor & Einstein tensor. Having finally located my notes, one can quickly show that Rμν=0 ⇔ Gμν=0

By definition, Rμν= Gμν +½(gμνR)    Rμν=0 ⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Gμν=0

But the trace of the Einstein tensor is G=-R  So Gμν=0 ⇒G=0⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Rμν=0

I can say this with some feeling as a guy who calculated the tensor in detail in a free-space solution before the slap-the-forehead moment...
Yes, that is completely true.  The interesting thing is that the Ricci tensor being zero somewhere, sometime, Rμν = 0 does not necessarily mean that spacetime is flat (for 4D spacetime).  Therefore  Gμν=0 does not necessarily mean that spacetime is flat either.  In 4D spacetime Rμν = 0  does not at all mean that Rαβμν = 0 .
It is the Riemann curvature tensor Rαβμν (which is a 4th rank tensor, as opposed to the Ricci tensor Rμν which is only second rank) that completely defines the curvature.  Thus General Relativity is interesting because one can have zero mass and a zero source of energy in a region in 4D spacetime, therefore Ricci tensor Rμν = 0 and yet the Riemann curvature tensor Rαβμν may have non-zero components.  One can have gravitational waves that carry momentum and energy in a given region of spacetime without that region in spacetime needing to contain mass or energy sources.  (This in contrast with charge in electrodynamics, where a source of charge is always needed, as photons do not carry charge).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/01/2017 05:52 PM

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Thank you, Notsosureofit.   The fact that entropy of bodies attracted by gravitation can increase purely due to dynamic movement of the bodies (without friction or other forms of dissipation being present) is something that escapes many people's attention.


I should add that my reasoning came not from GR, but from the "Hamiltonian" radars that I worked on in the 60's, where only the "entropic" components of the solutions were of interest.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 07:26 PM
...
 One can have gravitational waves that carry momentum and energy in a given region of spacetime without that region in spacetime needing to contain mass or energy sources.  (This in contrast with charge in electrodynamics, where a source of charge is always needed, as photons do not carry charge).

Something interesting to consider is an electronic positron annihilation.  The source of the charge after annihilation no longer exists.  The light could be considered to Cary the remaining mass and charge of the annihilated e-p pair. 

The electric field of light possibly being low level disturbance of vacuum e-p pair virtual particles.  So while they have zero charge it may actually be negative plus positive.  Reversing the light wave recreates the charges. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/01/2017 10:37 PM
True, 2,4 Ghz is an ISM band.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band). But there are others. I have an Amateur Radio license and could legally use those bands, but there are other legal requirements which may make such a plan untenable.

I understand the problems with heat and drift of magnetrons, but there was a paper posted here some time ago which detailed ways of stabilizing them. Stable enough? Maybe not.

People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/01/2017 11:13 PM
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/02/2017 03:36 AM
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

The vacuum pairs I suspect can not reach a zero temperature state.  As a result the vacuum should actually possess some form of average mass/energy, on a large scale. 

If we push against light resulting in a 2nd order Doppler shift (change in frame) might this also have an effect on accelerating or changing the frame of such vacuum pairs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/02/2017 04:37 AM
It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.

(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
They used to. I have done a few years there as a farm laborer/gardener (which is good for the blood) but all they do is banking now...

must confess to some workshop envy  :)

:J
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/02/2017 09:26 AM
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Paul Howard on 06/02/2017 08:47 PM
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/02/2017 09:17 PM
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/02/2017 09:34 PM
...

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.
...


It is taking longer than most people expected to get it confirmed/refuted, but IMO, the theoretical body and experimental work surrounding the Emdrive is much better than it ever was. But it seems like it will take several years more to achieve a conclusion.

This is a shocker for many, given our natural urgency to see if this has any truth behind it, but science is a slow deliberate process that takes years and sometimes decades.

Prof. Woodward has been doing something like this since the mid nineties, carefully gathering evidence and theoretical works and it is just now that his research received some institutional attention outside of the inner circle.

The Emdrive broke through into public attention in 2006 (even if Mr. Shawyer had been working on it since several years before), so it's slightly more than 10 years since anyone else than Mr. shawyer heard about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 06/02/2017 11:27 PM
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?

Patience, Grasshopper ;) . From memory, it took 7 years for polywater to be declared "not an actual thing". Lots of folks are spending a phenomenal amount of time, money, and effort to pick this signal out of the noise, and there is phenomenal science being done here.

The other "weird science" I personally follow is LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, AKA cold fusion). That apparently is also an area where something seems to be going on, but no-one can get a "recipe" type handle on it, because it violates what we think we know.

Theory and experiment tend to leap-frog each other. We're all in the middle of a leap. It's a matter of time and co-operation to determine whether the frog goes splat, or keeps soaring.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/03/2017 12:30 AM
It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.

(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
They used to. I have done a few years there as a farm laborer/gardener (which is good for the blood) but all they do is banking now...

must confess to some workshop envy  :)

:J
Everyone needs a playpen.  ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/03/2017 03:57 AM
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

I wrote to the authors regarding their work vs the work of Dr Fern and Prof. Woodward, recently published in JBIS. Because their claim that there are 1.11 x 1039 parapositronium "on mass shell" atoms per cubic meter, results in a cubic meter of empty spacing having an instantaneous rest mass of over 2 million metric tons.

I'm looking forward to a response.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/03/2017 04:42 AM
       What is often over looked by those wanting to degrade those involved in em drive research and discussion is in the context of the long term future. Long distance space propulsion through nuclear reactions may not be the wisest or most feasible propulsion. Not only is it a danger to crew and launch missions but it is not an easily found fuel and a complicated design, with many 'possible fail points' in the system where as in the EM drive you can charge batteries off of a lot of materials and interactions and its fairly simple. A low fail, simplistic design is crucial in space travel. Things that can't be fixed, cannot be allowed to break down.  Ion propulsion is stymied in fuel by Xenon and Solar sails are too weak or flimsy, while functional regenerative materials will take another decade at least to even be operable, and that doesn't mean they will even work. Yet I don't see people and the media going around such that, "people researching quantum field theory of solar sails are delusional." Most physicists that I see attack the EM drive are usually indoctrinated by academic peer pressure to disregard everything, or simply don't know any better about the research being done.   
        "The scientific (mind) does not aim at an immediate result. They do not expect that their advanced ideas will be readily taken up. Their work is like that of the planter - for the future. Their duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way." - Tesla

      Quantum mechanics and field theory in cavities is a very complicated scenario with a large array of phenomena. If you look at fusion cavity research it is probably some of the most complex interactions to be solved through physics. More than particle interactions and the big bang computations because they are under no pressure to extract energy from their experiments reactions.
So you could almost assimilate em drive research to be as difficult and as complicated as fusion research in many instances, and especially considering the economic environment. ITER, and CERN receive billions. It is easy to attack those who don't have exuberant funding. Though large funding is not always equal to good science. In fact I think the smaller fusion experiments will gain more headway in the long term as far as discovery.
What we are discovering and will discover through this research may not formulate in the way you thought it would. Science has a funny way of discovering other things and inventions while trying to solve some unrelated problem such as all the 1000's of inventions nasa indirectly has made while flying rockets and people around the Earth.

In critical terms the low 'm newton' thrust needs to be increased by a factor of 10 to be able to overcome GEO correct? As well as a stabilization ability as I believe it will have sporadic tilt. So to me, rather than directing money to an inflight experiment, or building more em drives; developing a more detailed simulation model with an ability to alter various characteristics and physics formulas with the intent of increasing thrust and stabilization with an increase of detailed interactions would be an objective worth alternative consideration before you build. IMHO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2017 06:39 AM
Some things just take a long time to prove or disprove. Look at how long LIGO took to produce results, it's my understanding that even with Einstein on their side so to speak many weren't sure if it would ever produce any results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/03/2017 01:46 PM
My take on the time for results.

On the surface this looks like a simple thing to do. Something you should be able to pick up at your local supermarket.
1 can of microwaves
1 antenna
1 table
Box of sensors
Spaghetti-O-wires
Box of Lucky Charms
1 theory recipe (sold out of theory this week)

Mix all ingredients thoroughly (without the theory recipe) and.  bake, heat, chill, let stand, or boil. Sadly you end up with something your dog won't eat because they were out of recipes.

On the surface this looks easy to do but it's not. The drive is relative easy to build all things considered.
(https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lhc.jpg)

Although it's very easy to get this silly thing to fail.

To do this right and prove without a shadow of doubt will take time and small calculated steps. Maybe someone will get lucky and hit it with a first time build, but don't count on it, as one missed ingredient and it will fail.

(https://uptownsparkle.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/success-is-the-ability-to-go-from-failure-to-failure-without-losing-your-enthusiasm.jpg)

When I get discouraged and ready to throw in the towel I come back here to recharge and get a dose of enthusiasm. I thank you all for that.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/03/2017 09:06 PM
If you check your closet and the anti-gravity machine is dust free, you may want to continue to experiment.  ;) 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/03/2017 09:53 PM
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.

I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/03/2017 11:18 PM
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 06/04/2017 12:29 AM
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 01:39 AM
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 01:46 AM
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 01:47 AM
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty likely to me.

And how do you explain ITS?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 02:08 AM
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 02:17 AM
BFR/BFS, formerly known as MCT...  The(presently) paper rocket/spaceship.  My point with the question is that BFS is still in the CAD/etc stage, and as it's design in particular would be radically different(for the better) if EMDrive was a thing, you'd think that if he took it even remotely seriously, he would have been sending them up for quite some time now to prove it/increase TRL before he seriously considers sending fleets of hundreds or thousands of 150MT dry ships with massive tanks off every synod, each needing 4 launches.  Moreover, how many college classes launch cubesat-sized payloads into orbit every year?  You can pretend like Musk might be blinded by (insert reason here), but everybody who has routine access to space?  Why doesn't anybody with routine access to space and enough resources to build a flight article do just that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Superfastjellyfish on 06/04/2017 02:22 AM
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.

ITS is Musk's 'colonization of Mars' vehicle.  It's ridiculous, IMO. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System

edit:  Ninja'd :) 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kenny008 on 06/04/2017 02:27 AM
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream."  LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 02:46 AM
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream."  LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.

Thanks for putting this in a more eloquent way than I could have.  That being said, my opinion is that at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation.  It's not like this is new, and it's not like there's a high barrier to entry simply to make a copy of a design and send it up to find out whether the anomalous thrust is systemic or real.  That would be extremely useful all by itself, forget understanding why.  I posit that if anybody took this even remotely seriously, somebody would have done that already.  I think it goes beyond simply "outside of mainstream" because the potential reward is just so huge for taking the risk, and the risk is very small as far as space experiments go.

Edit - Think about it this way.  It would cost like 1/10th or 1/100th or something of the fairing reuse experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/04/2017 04:02 AM
at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation.

You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is blatantly fallacious, which in turn, makes me question the validity of any of your claims.

I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.

In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that one of their main missions is centered around  the higgs of which has yet to be proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN because I appreciate their work. I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.
 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 04:06 AM
You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is fallacious in many regards. Which makes me question the validity of any of your claims.
Are you referring to what China supposedly did?  I thought the latest on that was that they have not actually flown anything, and that blurb had been discredited.  Am I missing new information?


Quote
I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.
I do know that Cannae has plans for an inexpensive compact demonstrator.  Are they also lacking in understanding, or are they just outright lying?  I wonder what your idea of what it takes to design a re-entry/glide/landing profile and kit for fairings(my example) entails and costs, and how that compares to a EMDrive demonstrator?  Re college cubesats, I didn't ask how many are built every year, I asked how many are launched every year, making your point superfluous.

Quote
In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that their whole mission is centered around gluons and the higgs of which NEITHER have been proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN, etc, I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.

I wonder if you realize that asserting that LHC still has not completed it's stated objectives actually reinforces my point.  I'd also like to point out that I did not say that it has.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/04/2017 04:52 AM
I don't like how this conversation is evolving into degrading highly funded physics research to prove the em drive research is legitimate. While I am a strong supporter fusion research, it has yet to prove that it has much if any return on energy.  Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then? You see why you cant make analogies like that? There is a good lecture on the danger of analogies I linked.
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without. I think its also just as ridiculous to think that you cant increase the reaction of this thrust.
I'm so tired of the people who come in here just to drop a few lines of hate,who don't understand biases and logical fallacies, and don't provide any constructive comments on physics.

list of cognitive biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

The backfire effect
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments

The dangers of analogies
 https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 04:54 AM
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.

Quote
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.

Quote
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No.  But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/04/2017 06:27 AM
And still no NET energy generation...

Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/04/2017 07:04 AM
After years of gentle persuasion the Astronomy Society of South Australia has published my emdrive article in the June 2017 edition of their Bulletin. See, patience is rewarded  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/04/2017 07:08 AM


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

I take issue with the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Extraordinary claims require the same evidence as any other scientific claim. That phrase is catchy but it is simply not true.

All scientific claims require sufficient information to allow for replication and examination of possible sources of error.  Notice that a theory explaining the claim or observation is not a requirement. A theory is nice and many people seem to think that it is a requirement.  A theory that explains an observation is certainly helpful as a guide to further understanding an observation.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/04/2017 10:45 AM
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.

Quote
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.

Quote
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No.  But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.

So what was all that about, were you just being a disruptive and non-constructive contributor to the thread then?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/04/2017 01:54 PM
@Star One

Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (an entire wiki's worth (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust, not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.       

I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/04/2017 03:15 PM
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......

.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....

While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.

Setting aside the theoretical speculation (and I say speculation because there has been insufficient experimental evidence to support any of the existing theories), Shawyer has never published enough design information for anyone to know that any of the attempts to replicate his claims, including Yang's attempt, can be thought of as an independent test of his design or claims. If an EmDrive can produce useable thrust, the only thing that can be said at present based on published data, is that is appears far more difficult to design and test, than your above statement, "Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than..." implies.

In the second case above, it has always bothered me that when Yang retracted here original conclusions, based on the results of an inherently different experiment, it has been taken by many as proof of the flaws in her initial experimental design. Yang certainly had and has the right to re-evaluate her conclusions, but the second experiment was not designed in a manner that provided data that proved the design flaw she attributed to her first attempt. It was not good science. Though I agree with her conclusion that the design flaws were potentially the source of experimental error, she never published information demonstrating that she reassembled the original design and proved her conclusions. Her two experiments involved two different designs. It is not even certain that the frustums were identical, while it is certain that the microwave sources and controls were very different.

You could have the perfect testing design and unless your frustum, microwave source and controls were properly matched, your results would be of no significance. It has been discussed on several occasions how even seemingly insignificant changes in the design of the frustum, dimensions and materials, would have significant impact on resonance... Which would then ensure faulty experimental design and make building a working EmDrive inherently more difficult, than a flawed design. Thus it would seem inherently easier to fail than succeed, in demonstrating that it does not work than otherwise.

Until, the fundamental mechanism that results in an anomalous thrust is known, designing a working EmDrive and experimental test bed is an issue of trial and error. At least until someone either publishes design data of a previously demonstrated functional EmDrive, or one of the DIY or otherwise independent labs stumbles on a functional design and publishes, in enough detail, test results that can be duplicated.

The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/04/2017 03:16 PM
@Star One

Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (an entire wiki's worth (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust, not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.       

I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck ;)

I was worried the thread was falling victim to drive by posting again derailing it, as has happened in the past.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2017 03:29 PM
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
And how do you explain ITS?
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.
Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.

it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic.
Please point to a specific example, of an experiment that meets what you described in your first sentence and I will explain why this is not the case.
if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven.
Again, it would take an absurdly sensitive and absurdly controlled experiment to do this.

I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Each successive experiment has further constrained the potential strength of the emDrive effect, and current signals have been at the same level as the noise or expected errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2017 03:47 PM
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......

.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....

While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.

...

The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.
You entirely missed the meaning of my statement. I was talking about rigorously demonstrating that there is no emDrive effect, even something below your experiment's sensitivity. Most of your post amounts to further explanation of why fully disproving the emDrive is nearly impossible. It is obviously easy to make an emDrive that doesn't conclusively work. Experimentally disproving the emDrive has all of the problems you listed in your post and then some, because you have to show that none of what you stated is the reason you got no force.

As for Yang, we could have a long discussion on the merits and flaws in Yang's papers, and I see flaws in all of them including the retraction. I'd rather not go into details if we can at least agree that Yang's original large measured force is most likely due to a flawed setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 05:37 PM
We can all debate about if testing by various individuals or groups was enough to prove that the EMDrive works or not and still end up where we all started. . . debating. Theories are different.

Building and testing is absolutely critical to be the best that can be (with funding) to gain solid data. That data will or will not go to prove the drive doesn't work, or works. If it works than the data points can be plugged into existing theories or even a new theory. . . hopefully.

This device could have the ability to change the world we live in and change can happen in a relatively short time. I had to search for an sample of something I saw years ago that drove home this point. The two pictures are from Denver, CO. In a span of only 13 years, from 1900 to 1913 we went from horse drawn carriages to Model Ts.

I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/04/2017 06:10 PM
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor.  A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/04/2017 07:07 PM
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 07:11 PM


Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.



In the first draft I was going to point out that in correspondence or text it is good form to spell out acronyms when they first enter the dialog unless they are so well known and in general use that their meaning is considered universally understood. On consideration I choose to actually delete that part of my response because i thought it sounded impolite rude. The final draft you object to is actually much more polite than the original "mr style guide enforcer" appearance of my original approach.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 07:24 PM
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.

You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 07:25 PM
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor.  A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
Geez. Scientific rigor is my primary concern.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/04/2017 07:38 PM
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.

You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.

My Very Best,
Shell

I'm willing to wait. Alas, I'm only human; I need to know what I'm waiting for!  ;D Thank you, SeaShells.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2017 12:35 AM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:42 AM
monomorphic is still refining his testing

I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2017 12:49 AM
In China, there have been three official institutions conducted emdrive experiments, measuring thrust on the ground, they are Northwestern Polytechnical University, Harbin Institute of Technology, China Aerospace Science and technology group.  Professor Yang Juan completed the last paper test at the Harbin Institute of Technology laboratory, and Harbin Institute of Technology carried out special experiments and research.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/05/2017 12:57 AM
monomorphic is still refining his testing

I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.

What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 01:03 AM
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/05/2017 02:02 AM
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.

What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/05/2017 07:01 AM
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
Jamie,

a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wktymv8fsus
I suspect it is going to be very hard to maintain a nicely curved surface, while sanding it manually...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/05/2017 07:18 AM
[size=78%]I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier. [/size]



I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.
Would machining plexiglass work instead?  Not sure how you would copper plate it afterwards but it would be consistent with the rest of the fustrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:29 PM
What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part.

The prusa 3D printer has a resolution of 50 microns. So I was going to start there. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:38 PM
a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/05/2017 12:45 PM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/05/2017 01:04 PM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Does that usually work, not the biggest expert on translating PDFs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/05/2017 01:06 PM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/05/2017 01:40 PM
a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.

Well, maybe there are alternatives, check this stuff (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/3d-printing-moving-machine)  ;)

[edit]

Or, you may always go for the plastic printing, as long as someone (no idea here, sorry) finds a way to apply this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_plating) to the printed parts

[edit #2]

found something here (http://hackaday.com/2015/01/12/electroplating-copper-and-silver-onto-3d-prints/) - not sure it may fit, though

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 06/05/2017 01:55 PM
I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.

Are you sure you want to go that route? From what 3d printed parts I've seen, they were never exact.

The couple of times that I happened to see the "work" of an older (some 6-7 years) industrial type machine that must have cost a fortune when it was new and was owned by a large company, I found it impressively unimpressive. Straight vertical elements were askew, no two seams of a sectioned part would really fit together and the dimensional tolerances of the final part were such that no self-respecting mechanical engineer would ever dare to utter that term in this context. Granted, the machine was an early generation, no longer new, and becoming increasingly flakey. It must have seen better days - otherwise nobody would have paid much for it, but still it was difficult to imagine it ever being useful for precision parts.

If anything, plastic filament 3d printing looks to me more like the first coarse production step, to be followed by the famous universal finishing approach "file to fit, sand to suit, hammer home", only without the hammering, the parts being fragile.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 01:58 PM
CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

This looks like an emdrive based reaction control system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 06/05/2017 02:16 PM
CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

This looks like an emdrive based reaction control system.

Yep, seems so. And the other patent describes a force locked control loop. The circuit diagram inside is an oscillator, apparently with some FM capability (by "pulling" a crystal resonator). The google-translated text describes the EM drive being attached to a force sensor that provides a signal to a controller, which in turn controls the oscillator.

P.S. Apparently they envision an early stage prototype satellite. The coarse frequency selection steps are described to be remotely commanded from ground control (presumably in discrete steps), based on the (presence or absence of force) feedback from the force sensor. The fine frequency control does not seem clearly described, but I think that is what the FM is for. This would need reasonably fast realtime (PLL-like) control only realistically achievable with an on board controller.

P.P.S. The "invention" does not seem to amount to much - it looks like a first step going from a constant frequency non-adjustable RF source to one that can be stepped through a series of bands by remote commands. Trivial patents, anyone? Almost as if the inventor designed TV tuner circuits - preset a channel number (coarse frequency) by remote, then let the AFC circuit handle the fine tuning :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/05/2017 04:11 PM
...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon.  Also for copper plating I've used a company in Baltimore, MD called Repliform (http://www.repliforminc.com/) who did an amazing job for us on a spherical object.
Usually what you do with these kinds of requirements is 3D print a 'near net shape' (adding extra material) and then machine it down - 'file to fit' :)  As this is circular, you should be able to put it on a lathe and get a really good finish.  Polishing most plastics can be done with a heat gun :D
Oh, and check out this video which was uploaded this morning on 3D printing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIUfOC0WAc (lightly related)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/05/2017 05:08 PM
I do not know whether it is only my opinion or it represents opinion from several others too, but may I suggest we leave alone the 3D printing idea before Shawyer's, EW's, and TheTraveller's claims are confirmed/replicated? After all, they did not use 3D printing. If we pursue this 3D printing idea, I suspect new ideas such as graphene plating, YBCO plating/annealing, explosive forming, powder metallurgy,aspherical shaping, you-name-a-new-tech, will all jump in to delay the tests.

For monomorphic's test, I am especially interested in the direction-relative-to-Earth-magnetic-field null test. It's a pity monomorphic did not carry out this albeit easy test. No, not all known interferences were eliminated in those reported tests. Here is one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/05/2017 06:33 PM
These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I've been eyeing this type of high metal content filament for some time....
but...
- did you notice it has a rather high degree of shrinking, because you melt away the 15% of PLA
- It needs a high temperature oven (ceramic baking type) to fuse the copper/bronze/... particles together

The lost wax process is indeed a good option, although it also has some dimensional shrinking issues.
And it will need additional machining to get a smooth interior surface

I'd say, for a quick testing, a 3dprint might be an option, on condition the temperature doesn't go too high...

I still think a mold, lathe copper spinning technique would yield the cheapest, best finished product.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to build the lathe molding shape with 3Dprinting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6lINFzdtCA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 07:46 PM
For monomorphic's test, I am especially interested in the direction-relative-to-Earth-magnetic-field null test. It's a pity monomorphic did not carry out this albeit easy test.

It's on my list. I had to reinforce the workbench legs as they were not designed to be pushed around on wheels. The whole test stand nearly toppled over one day spilling the entire antifreeze dampening fluid reservoir all over the floor and breaking the glass container into a hundred shards.  It took a couple of hours to get that cleaned up and ever since then i've been a little afraid to move it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 07:52 PM
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/05/2017 09:08 PM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/05/2017 09:17 PM

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."

Roger Shawyer has patents yet here we are, discussing the validity of his presumed invention.

Patents by themselves aren't evidence of anything. Given the lack of rigor on their review, nowadays they are just like placeholders for potential intellectual property.

Peer-reviewed papers, communiqués and press releases are a bit more interesting, because they can describe events and happenings that we aren't aware of yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WhirlingWorlds on 06/05/2017 11:23 PM
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.

instead of the 3d printer or lathe, i would suggest you use amateur telescope making (atm) techniques to grind a concavity (or convexity, the tool will do that anyway) in a copper blank.  it requires little prep and just a little research, is far, far cheaper, and would make a much more accurate surface.  there should be many, many videos on youtube on the procedure.  perhaps reach out to the atm community and enlist the aid of an interested volunteer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/06/2017 12:27 AM
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

I wrote to the authors regarding their work vs the work of Dr Fern and Prof. Woodward, recently published in JBIS. Because their claim that there are 1.11 x 1039 parapositronium "on mass shell" atoms per cubic meter, results in a cubic meter of empty spacing having an instantaneous rest mass of over 2 million metric tons.

I'm looking forward to a response.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/236/how-does-positronium-exist
It appears while positronium can exist, it has a half-life from .125ns to 142ns if the last poster is correct.  What is interesting is depending on the local available energy these positronium can pop in and out of existence.  To me that suggest something similar to phantom particles with zero rest mass but some transient mass depending on the local available energy. 

I am toying with their idea that there is a density of these positronium particles in the vacuum inside the frustum.  At the narrow end having the same density there are less particles than at the large end.  Combine that with increased energy density at the narrow end.  Take the photon density at the narrow end over the positronium density.  If the ratio exceeds one, nature may be some how combining energy from multiple positronium into fewer. (squeezed light?)  More enegy/(virtual particle - almost positronium) should increase the mass.  That is supposing the photons are the disturbed phantom positronium. 

Increased mass at the narrow end would transfer more energy per collision than to the larger end with lighter virtural particles?...  Its almost the opposite direction than the other idea I was toying with. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/06/2017 12:47 AM
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."
In 2014, Professor Yang Juan conducted emdrive experiments at the Harbin Institute of Technology Laboratory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/06/2017 05:04 AM


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/236/how-does-positronium-exist
It appears while positronium can exist, it has a half-life from .125ns to 142ns if the last poster is correct.  What is interesting is depending on the local available energy these positronium can pop in and out of existence.  To me that suggest something similar to phantom particles with zero rest mass but some transient mass depending on the local available energy. 



In addition; atoms can be made of muons (Muonium) and Kaons (Kaonium) with similar miniscule half lives. One might speculate that just like conditions or proximity of other particles alters the half life of neutrons there might be conditions that stabilize these fleeting atoms in a like manner.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/06/2017 05:20 AM
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.

Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Thanks for all you are doing.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2017 01:10 PM
Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/06/2017 04:07 PM
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.
*facepalm* Sorry I knew that...that's what I get for trying to do imperial to metric in my head...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 05:33 PM
If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).

It seems you are suggesting an unknown mechanism based on a hypothetical 'entropy' to limit accelerations of an EmDrive or Mach Effect Thruster. Such a limitation would make any device effectively useless as the acceleration would asymptotically go to zero and the speed achieved for the total energy expended would be unimpressive and always linked to the square root of the total energy input. No going to the stars. But I'm skeptical such a limitation exists. Different inertial frames woud require different acceleration limits depending on their relative velocities yet the acceleration profile would also be absolute leading to paradoxes. I prefer Dr. Woodward's explanation that there is no energy problem, only a misunderstanding of basic physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/06/2017 05:35 PM
Shell,

I agree.

Buried in the readings above, there are three notable items: Dirac and Weyl versions of Maxwells equations, Conservation of Angular Momentum at both atomic and elementary particle level,  and the magnetic monopole which is required for quantization of charge which is a requirement for quantum mechanics

In the paper Electromagnetic Duality Anomaly in Curved Spacetimes, the Weyl version of Maxwell's equations is important to understand.
ref: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.08879.pdf

Conservation of Angular Momentum (AM) at the atomic level, and at the elementary particle level are from a form of the Total Angular Momentum Quantum Number.

Atomic:       j = s + l where j is the total AM, s is atomic spin, and l is the atomic orbital (sic) AM.

Elementary: J = S + L where J is the total AM, S is elementary spin, and L is the elementary orbit (sic) AM.

Quanta? The conjecture is that elementary particles are made of even smaller building blocks call quanta, an energy only particle or perhaps particle family. At the sub-elementary level, the quanta are expected to have both spin and orbit-like parameters. Current data is scarce and inconclusive.

Your Mass May Vary,

David



Magnetic Monopole

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html

"In 1894, Nobel Laureate Pierre Curie discussed the possibility of such an undiscovered particle and could find no reason to discount its existence. Later, in 1931, Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac showed that when Maxwell's equations are extended to include a magnetic monopole, electric charge can exist only in discrete values.
This "quantisation" of electric charge is one of the requirements of quantum mechanics. So Dirac's work went towards showing that classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics were compatible theories in this sense."

See also https://phys.org/news/2015-04-physicists-quantum-mechanical-monopoles.html
Physicists discover quantum-mechanical monopoles



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html#jCp



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 05:45 PM
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.

I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.

Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 06:02 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/06/2017 06:50 PM
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/

A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.

Quote
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/06/2017 07:23 PM
It may be that current duplicated experiments, constrained to equipment sizes, radio frequencies, power levels, and materials that are "convenient", are just brushing up against the effect, whatever it is, rather than hitting its sweet spot.  Given that nobody is sure how this effect works (if it does) this is not surprising.  But once a confirmed theory is developed, it might be possible to greatly increase efficiency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/06/2017 07:45 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 07:51 PM
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/

A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.

Quote
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.


Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 08:01 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".

What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/06/2017 08:12 PM

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".

What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.

No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/06/2017 08:20 PM
How does one capture the Universe in a few words and inspire generations?

Sagan's infamous quote and mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can be parsed into three other possibilities. Sagan's abilities to overstate the obvious and often the obvious is stated in such a way as to provide an out of the box view to drive home a point even to the dullest dullard glued to the TV or video. Here are three other possibilities of that famous phrase.

Simple claims required extraordinary evidence.
Simple claims require simple evidence.
Extraordinary claims require simple evidence.

All of these are simply variations on the theme of "claims require evidence" which has two corollaries: Show me the data, and provide a rigorous proof.

Whether the emDrive uses mainstream physics such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or emerging science such as Quantum Field theory, in the end, the hidden message that Sagan captured with his Extraordinary Quote is that the 5% of the galaxy we understand needs something more. The data tells confirms our beliefs and at the same time says there is more, perhaps even extraordinary and well beyond what we already know, conjectured, surmised, guessed, tripped over, had an epiphany, or otherwise finally recognized and grasped.

Clearly, Nature knows more than we know. So data needs a rigorous proof so we can add the useful discovery so the next time we encounter it, the claims are no longer extraordinary nor is the evidence in data and theory extraordinary. Instead, we simply will step up our game to the next level and reach higher, faster and farther in our olympic level quest to understand this universe, and perhaps others.

Three Sagan videos online...

100 Billion galaxies each with a hundred billion of stars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ex__M-OwSA

Man in his arrogance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrL0BXsO40

Humility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8GA2w-qrcg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/06/2017 08:42 PM
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/07/2017 07:30 AM
Not very bright late night thought:

The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.' 

Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy.  Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity.  Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun.  Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet.  Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.

The EM Drive tests are all over the place.  But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon.  The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle.  Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy?  The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?

Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?

Better quit while I'm behind. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/07/2017 08:39 AM
Not very bright late night thought:

The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.' 

Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy.  Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity.  Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun.  Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet.  Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.

The EM Drive tests are all over the place.  But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon.  The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle.  Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy?  The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?

Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?

Better quit while I'm behind. 

More beer and pizza ordered.

If we are going to start down the long road of Mach theory where everything in the universe contributes to the local condition and performance of mass especially under accelerations, then we need to add a number of items to the laundry list of possible contributions to the  causes and effects of the emDrive including field reconnection of both electric and magnetic fields especially after frame dragging is induced, and any correlation with the hydrogen line.

A conjecture worth investigating is that ...
In the emDrive the hydrogen line may actually be contributing to the eigenvalues and frequencies as a parametric amplifier which in turn may produce nonlinear effects including thrust. After all, externally the copper may be attracting electrons as the electrons internally are absorbed into the plasma. A more general approach would be to examine any potential contributions to amplification especially parametric amplification and in particular the hydrogen line.

If the emDrive does not perform in space tests as it performs on the ground in the labs or field testing, especially outside the earth's influence of atmosphere and fields, then we at least have to advance emDrive theory to determine how to build a proper space drive for space operations.




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/07/2017 05:46 PM
Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.

Thanks for the reply. Two additional questions. How thick do you want the end plate to be? On your drawing I see a flange that appears to be flat. Is that part of the end plate or is that just a reference to the drawing? If it is part of the end plate what are its dimensions?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/07/2017 06:41 PM
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state (but wait, QM says that's impossible!..oh well, too bad) and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/07/2017 07:04 PM
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 06/07/2017 09:12 PM
There seems to already be a thread for Black/Brightlight Power: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.160

With just the emdrive itself having serious credibility problems, it's surely not a good idea to associate it with other fringe-y concepts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/07/2017 09:17 PM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/07/2017 11:57 PM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/08/2017 02:52 AM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/08/2017 03:28 AM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/08/2017 04:17 AM
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/08/2017 04:29 AM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.
I'm very familiar about the issues with air bearings. We extensively used air bearings in our equipment we designed for the semiconductor industry.

All of the DYIers went with the Torsion Wire Pendulum with the guidance of Dr. Rodal and others here.

The data wasn't bad if you consider all of the data including the test bed and fixtures. The data allowed questions to be raised on the validly of the airbearing setup which I agree with. Personally I would have never went with a spherical airbearing.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/08/2017 08:00 AM
I have an advanced 3D printer: Stratasys Fortus 360mc, upgraded to 400mc specs, build volume 40.6 x 35.5 x 40.6 cm (14" x 16" x 14") and can use a wide variety of plastics. I will be shortly moving much of my work from PLA and ABS and into the Nylon and the very high-performance Ultem. I would very much enjoy talking about applications of 3D printing to EMdrive. The noise level in this forum is pretty high and it is going to take me a little while but I will have something of substance to post within the next day or two.

...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon.  Also for copper plating I've used a company in Baltimore, MD called Repliform (http://www.repliforminc.com/) who did an amazing job for us on a spherical object.
Usually what you do with these kinds of requirements is 3D print a 'near net shape' (adding extra material) and then machine it down - 'file to fit' :)  As this is circular, you should be able to put it on a lathe and get a really good finish.  Polishing most plastics can be done with a heat gun :D
Oh, and check out this video which was uploaded this morning on 3D printing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIUfOC0WAc (lightly related)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/09/2017 02:49 AM
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

I do not think the quantum number, n=1/2, 1/3, etc. is realistic, but I wouldn't say "0 supporting evidence" for a reduced ground state energy. If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

So if he wants to observe this affect, he would need to create (or simulate) a gravity well in the Lab. One way to simulate it would be to give the atoms very high velocity and SR effects will lower the ground state energy. It's all a matter of clock rates (frequency is energy).



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/09/2017 03:33 AM
Back from NIAC's orientation Meeting at NASA's headquarters  :) .  There are many exciting NIAC projects this year: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

Here is a picture at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, standing next to one of the Saturn V  F-1  gas-generator cycle rocket engine nozzles, where I am next to Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State University, Fullerton) and Marshall Eubanks (MIT educated physicist, ex Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and astronomer at the U.S. Naval Observatory.)

During the Evening Social I was lucky to be seated between and listen to and learn from Dr. John G. Cramer, and Dr. Michael I. Yarymovych.

Dr. John G. Cramer, Professsor of Physics at the University of Washington, who also works with the STAR (Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC) detector at the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Among his many publications is the book "The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions" Springer; 1st ed. 2016 edition.  His published novels consist of Twistor (1989) and Einstein's Bridge (1997); both within the hard science fiction genre.

Dr. Michael I. Yarymovych, was Boeing V.P. for international technology of the Information, Space and Defense Systems Group.  V.P. for Rockwell International, in advanced development, missile defense, engineering of the Space Shuttle, Global Positioning System. Assistant Administrator of the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force,  Director of NATO AGARD in Paris, France, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the USAF for R&D and Technical Director of the USAF  Manned Orbital Laboratory. Previously at NASA Headquarters Manned Space Flight Program involved with the Apollo lunar landing effort and  initial definition studies of the Space Station and the Space Shuttle. Ex Chairman of AGARD and its successor the NATO Research and Technology Organization. 2002 recipient of the NATO RTO's highest award, the von Karman Medal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/09/2017 02:38 PM
I see Heidi Fearn has a Mach Effect test proposal on the list.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/09/2017 03:57 PM
.....

.... If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

....

I seems what you are suggesting is that the red-shift is due to the affect of a gravity well on an atom's ground state, rather than the affect of the gravity well on the propagation of the associated red-shifted photons, as they travel out of the gravity well.

It is entirely possible that the ground state of an atom is affected by its location within a gravity well, that would be my assertion (for different reasons beyond this discussion).., but I am unconvinced, that. on its own, this explains any observed red-shift in its emission spectrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 06:07 PM
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

I do not think the quantum number, n=1/2, 1/3, etc. is realistic, but I wouldn't say "0 supporting evidence" for a reduced ground state energy. If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

So if he wants to observe this affect, he would need to create (or simulate) a gravity well in the Lab. One way to simulate it would be to give the atoms very high velocity and SR effects will lower the ground state energy. It's all a matter of clock rates (frequency is energy).

It has nothing to do with gravity. It's an interaction of a hydrogen atom with an appropriate catalyst. I attached a photo of the extreme UV spectra that shows the formation of the hydrino state. The double peak is a clear signature of the two stage process of hydrino formation. Here is a test run from last year, it's not a small effect as these tests kept vaporizing the tungstun electrodes so they went to liquid silver electrodes in the latest design.

Needless to say, such a reaction hold great promise as a power source for any EMDrive or MEGA based vehicle for liftoff and local solar system operations when solar power isn't enough.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuAuTDFTVdQ
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/09/2017 10:27 PM

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.

No offense meant toward Jamie but there is a huge difference between a proper air bearing as opposed to a DIY effort.  A proper air bearing is highly linear, very stiff (in the air gap), very low perturbation torque, and designed so that its meager but highly efficient air flow does not impinge on the rotor (much).  As for EW, I'd like to know the manufacturer of said air bearing and why/how it was so troublesome.  For me as an instrument designer and being experienced with these bearings, they would be my starting point.  Fully characterizing one would take about a day and if it is a good bearing from a reputable supplier, would be behave consistently over the long term.  I have not run the numbers but I am guessing an air bearing would have two orders of magnitude better sensitivity than is needed for the supposed thrust turned torque levels an EM drive is said to generate.  The air bearing would be my starting point for the freely rotating apparatus as what EW attempted, and for a constrained direct force measuring device.  Where air bearings fall down is in the vacuum environment we all would like to see as the next step (after positive results in air are strongly indicated).  Even at that, some of our competitors have vacuum scavenged bearings that likely would help the situation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/09/2017 11:55 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/10/2017 01:26 PM
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/10/2017 01:31 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.

Yes, pretty close to my thoughts.  Strictly speaking, it is not the fact that it continued to rotate at nearly the same rate.  You would expect this to happen to a large degree because the overall friction is so low and there is an appreciable MOI about the rotation axis.  Given the unknown timing resolution and the relatively short period after turn off, I would expect to see something close to the graph you reposted above.  However, and this is important, there should be a negative acceleration not a positive acceleration after turn off.  Granted because of the underlined from above, the negative acceleration may go undetected but we absolutely should not see a positive acceleration.

How much negative acceleration should there be?  Well both the air bearing itself and the experimental payload exhibit a torque decay comprised of three terms.

Coulomb friction - fixed amount related to "break-away" shearing air molecules apart from each other
Viscous friction - fluid in motion, rises linearly with rotation rate
Turbulence friction - rise as the square of the rotation rate

Considering a well behaved air bearing, in most cases the payload's contribution to torque decay will dominate.  Specifically, for EW's experiment the viscous friction would be the major contributor.  This is another way of saying nothing much is available to slow the experiment's rotation rate after turn off except for air drag.  Given a long enough coast duration we should see this.  It should not accelerate as EW's appears to do.

Separate thought.  Just to clarify for the readers.  What EW calls swirl I am calling motoring. Same phenomena different nomenclature.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/10/2017 01:34 PM
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 06/10/2017 04:18 PM
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,

Well, something happened, that is clear. Looks to me like nothing at all for 15 minutes after RF turn-on. Why? Then it looks like the RF started something that continued after RF turn-off, especially visible the first minutes after turn-off but continuing for hours. 'Course I could be reading the graph wrong. Do we know the MOI of the set-up?

Do I recall correctly that we have seen the characteristic of Force tailing off much more slowly than expected in other experiments? I suppose if the device really is related to the Mach effect then maybe time is required to experience the reaction of the more distant universe...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/10/2017 04:27 PM
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,

Every EM Drive experiment has had anomalies once the RF power is removed, without a sharp cutoff. It's the reason why I'm intrigued by the degraded space-time hypothesis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/10/2017 07:11 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/10/2017 09:02 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/10/2017 11:34 PM
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431993;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431995;image)

I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle.  See attached graphic file. 
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle.  Sorry for multiple changes.  Should be correct now. 

 using 30 reflections and the equation for dh  and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+...   ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
 959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
 50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm

It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light.  The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
 There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.

 Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3226451701232513783&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 04:24 AM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/11/2017 01:12 PM
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is scepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/11/2017 01:56 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.

For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/11/2017 03:06 PM
...For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Dr. White is giving a 40 minute presentation on the EM Drive and White's QV pilot wave theory, and chairing a Breakthrough Propulsion session next week in New York's workshop:

http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/physicsworkshop/

Foundations of Interstellar Studies
Workshop at City Tech, CUNY
June 13-15, 2017, New York, NY USA

Day 3: Breakthrough Propulsion, June 15, 2017
Time   Topic   Speaker   Organization
08.40   Welcome by Session Chairman: Harold White
08.50   1. Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Measured in Vacuum    Harold G. White   NASA JSC Eagleworks
09.30   2. Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Drive    Heidi Fearn et al.   California State University Fullerton
10.10   3. Entanglement and Chameleon Acceleration    Glen A. Robertson   GAResearch LLC
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 03:28 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.

For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?

Star-One:

I have no direct insights into what Dr. White is or is not doing since we have not talked since my departure from the Eagleworks Lab back in September 2016.  However Dr. Rodal is correct in that Dr. White is supposed to be presenting a paper at the New York Interstellar Conference next week that is supposed to be a paper on his evolving Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture based on de Broglie's pilot-wave approach to Quantum Mechanics (QM), see Dr. Rodal's latest post.  However I've not heard or seen any mention of the EW summer of 2016 Cavendish Balance experiment in any publications to date.  Has anybody else seen or heard of such a CB paper from the EW lab since I left it?

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/11/2017 03:31 PM
Thanks both of you for the clarification on the matter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 03:35 PM
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is skepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.

RERT:

Wish I could, but Dr. White is the holder of all the analytical/numerical data that was acquired by the 2016 Cavendish Balance (CB) test series, so your request for such should go to him directly at the NASA/JSC EW lab.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/11/2017 07:57 PM
Since we're at it; what about the attenuator you were planning to add ? Did you discard the idea or was it just moved to the "to do in a rainy day" box :) ?

I'm using a 5W attenuator now since the RF output is 2.5W. When I add the 30W amp, I will need a bigger attenuator. This is the current as-built wiring diagram.

I have bought myself a decent pre-amp (the Minicircuits ZX60-H242+) to drive the wifi amp (EDUP etc), Jamie. When measuring with the Zx47-40 detector (Minicircuits), I get an output power of 3.15 W (35 dBm) at 2.45 GHz.
The spectrum analyzer gives 2 dBm lower, though. I have to look into this discrepancy  (attached screenshot of the measurement is with 10 dB attenuator between the EDUP and the SA).
If this amp really gives more than 3 W, it is not bad at all.
Cheers, Peter

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/11/2017 08:11 PM
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/11/2017 08:32 PM
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.
Paul,

 I for one and think I speak for others here as well, deeply thank you for your dedication, your perseverance and your honesty. You're a rare man indeed.

 Thank you for forwarding your lab results on the error on the air bearing, it makes much more sense now you did see 18-20 uN of thrust.

My Very Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/11/2017 11:46 PM

Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.

To clarify, the mode demonstrated by Millis is very likely in certain configurations of linear air bearing especially those acting like air hockey tables which have high flow at low pressure, yielding very poor stiffness.  Rotary air bearings, especially low flow high pressure professionally made ones, will not exhibit this error mode.

Dan
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 12:23 AM
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,

Yes,  but we need further theoretical and experimental work  :). 

Notsosureofit was working on it, a lot of this is tied with entropy.

The curvature of space can also be measured with entropy measures

(K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces, Acta Math. 196 (2006), n 1, 65–177. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891805 
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891806   )
 
The idea is that, in positive Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a sphere), “midpoints spread out”: if we take two geometrical measures in the curved 4 D spacetime surface, and consider the set of points that lie “halfway” between the two sets then the set of midpoints is wider than expected from the Euclidean (flat) case. (For example, on a sphere, the set of midpoints of the two poles will be the whole equator.)
 
The reverse is true for negative Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a saddle).
 
In the entropy approach one uses probability measures instead of geometrical measures in the  4 D spacetime surface. The extent to which they are spread can be evaluated using the relative entropy (the Kullback–Leibler divergence  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence ).
 
I wonder whether Notsosureofit did any further work?

This somehow comes down to showing that gravity is an entropic event. After all, both gravity and entropy are spontaneous processes.

So, when an object falls toward the ground, it spontaneously moves toward where the rate of time is slower, which means relatively longer seconds. If the speed of light (m/s) is to remain constant, longer seconds “s” requires longer space “m”. In other words, the object is actually falling into larger space which is “dispersion”, the hallmark of entropy. Yes, gravity is an entropic process.

Both gravity and entropy share the same type of cause, a differential in the rate of “time-process” which translates as a differential in existence, i.e. motion for us. A different perspective we should all consider.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 12:46 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/12/2017 01:28 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.
>>   W. Unruh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/12/2017 02:05 AM
Still working on entropy.....looking for a simple enough model to prove the EM Drive a result of entropic force of zero or non-zero magnitude.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 02:14 PM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.
>>   W. Unruh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf

Rodal,

Thank you for the Unruh reference. Of course, the (his) analogy comes after your blue bold highlight and is not shown here.

. The analogy he is offering is to help those who have problem grasping the fact that time and gravity are the same.

EDIT: Actually, Unruh says something true and simple about the the universe  and then build/uses a rather complex analogy to explain it!?

 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/13/2017 02:27 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.

The argument that gravity is entropic does not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.

Corrected spelling  :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 03:11 AM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.

The argument that gravity is entropic dose not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.

Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/13/2017 04:42 AM
Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Marcel,

the concept of time lacks brevity. The term 'development' may be a better descriptor for what time does, than is 'flow'. Circumstances for an individual charge, develop at a rate relative to everything with which it is connected, ie; all other charges at separation ict.

'Time' is a name for a regular measure of that development against known rates of chemical and mechanical reaction. In my opinion, the divergence in the rate of development of time which we know as gravity causes acceleration of mass by altering the motion of electrons within the atom, extending and reducing their duration at the extremes of vertical displacement.

If inertia is a an inductive relationship with the universe, then it should act within the atom also  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/13/2017 02:02 PM
...
 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/K7czr.png)(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/Spacetime_Curvature1_70189939-D683-F998-125F103B12495157.jpg)(https://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/thorne/i6.gif)

Credit for last image (curvature of space, warping of time): Prof. Kip Thorne (Caltech)




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 02:43 PM
Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Marcel,

the concept of time lacks brevity. The term 'development' may be a better descriptor for what time does, than is 'flow'. Circumstances for an individual charge, develop at a rate relative to everything with which it is connected, ie; all other charges at separation ict.

'Time' is a name for a regular measure of that development against known rates of chemical and mechanical reaction. In my opinion, the divergence in the rate of development of time which we know as gravity causes acceleration of mass by altering the motion of electrons within the atom, extending and reducing their duration at the extremes of vertical displacement.

If inertia is a an inductive relationship with the universe, then it should act within the atom also  :)

--- First, let`s not do what philosophers do; invent a new word when there is already a good one that does the job. I call it the “time-process” in order to differentiate it from all other matter of meaning associated with the word “time”.

Second, this time-process and its variations make the whole universe. So, it is not surprising to find out we already had a name for it in one form or another. Time is a substance, not an experience, so we do not perceive time directly. We deduce it from motion and change.

Third, electricity and magnetism are variations of the time-process.

Fourth, the simple rule of logic that drives the universe is the cause which tells where things to exist; toward a place (gravity), away from a place (anti-gravity) or stay (structures, atoms, galaxies etc.). The only way time can logically affect a clock is if they are both operational i.e. they are of the same nature/substance or, the clock is also made of time!

Fifth,   inertia is a higher probability of existence in one direction resulting from the associated differential in the rate of the time-process i.e. the associated wave (pilot wave).   

The question is this. We have on one hand electricity, magnetism and electro-magnetism which we control and on the other hand we have the time-process which we don’t understand, but that makes everything and that is what we must control in order to get things going.  How do we connect the dots? The time-process/causal structure of the photon with its classic electromagnetic representation is the Rosetta Stone for achieving this translation. Meaning, what forms of the time-process makes electricity and magnetism.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 06:39 PM
...
 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/K7czr.png)(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/Spacetime_Curvature1_70189939-D683-F998-125F103B12495157.jpg)(https://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/thorne/i6.gif)

Credit for last image (curvature of space, warping of time): Prof. Kip Thorne (Caltech)

Thank you Dr Rodal for the nice and well illustrated expression of our present state of knowledge. As physics is concerned, I agree with it.

At the frontier between knowledge and ignorance, great men and women recognize being there by using philosophy or poetry to express the still unknown before them.

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.

 Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/13/2017 07:12 PM
....

Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

GR and thus Spacetime in the context of GR, is a geometric description of how massive objects interact due to gravitation. We could say that the presence of matter is the cause of gravity, because that is observable, and still not know what the underlying mechanism is. IOW Spacetime curvature is descriptive not causative and the presence of matter is at least a component of the underlying mechanism, that remains unknown.

The curvature of both space and time are descriptive of observable changes, in the way objects move and the rate of change, relative to an object's location in or motion through a gravity well. That is not the same as saying that curvature, another way of describing a location within a gravity well or perhaps the location specific effect of a gravity well on an object, is the cause of either.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 07:31 PM

In summary, keep "space" for what it is, just a tool. But don’t let “space” play any part in the working of the universe because it doesn’t exist. This means removing “space” from any explanatory or causality schemes.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/13/2017 07:36 PM
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/13/2017 08:26 PM
This could be relevant here.

Cosmology at at Crossroads: Tension with the Hubble Constant

Quote
We are at an interesting juncture in cosmology. With new methods and technology, the accuracy in measurement of the Hubble constant has vastly improved, but a recent tension has arisen that is either signaling new physics or as-yet unrecognized uncertainties.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02739
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/14/2017 12:25 AM
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

".... since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

My point was that instead of the above in bold, it would be better to say, (my words) "since a gravitational wave is described by Spacetime." And yes both a gravitational field and gravitional waves, exist and/or propagate through space empty of matter, without respect to their fundamental source.

I did not start out there but I do tend toward a more (loosely) Machian view of late, but that really is not a significant issue. What I would contend is that whether a gravitational field (or wave) is or can originate from the presence of a massive source or in the absence of a massive component, GR (and Spacetime within the context of GR) are descriptive, rather than causative. The underlying casitive mechanism remains unknown, even while our theoretical model(s) accurately describe the observable (and unobserved) dynamics. The wave itself may just be descriptive of some aspect of the fundamental mechanism.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 01:27 AM
...

".... since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

My point was that instead of the above in bold, it would be better to say, (my words) "since a gravitational wave is described by Spacetime." And yes both a gravitational field and gravitional waves, exist and/or propagate through space empty of matter, without respect to their fundamental source.

I did not start out there but I do tend toward a more (loosely) Machian view of late, but that really is not a significant issue. What I would contend is that whether a gravitational field (or wave) is or can originate from the presence of a massive source or in the absence of a massive component, GR (and Spacetime within the context of GR) are descriptive, rather than causative. The underlying casitive mechanism remains unknown, even while our theoretical model(s) accurately describe the observable (and unobserved) dynamics. The wave itself may just be descriptive of some aspect of the fundamental mechanism.
In General Relativity there is energy in both sides of the equation: there is energy in the left hand side of the equation that deals with the curvature of spacetime.  Even when the left hand side of the equation is zero, when the Ricci tensor is zero, there still can be curvature in 4-dimensional spacetime because the Riemann curvature tensor can be non-zero when the Ricci tensor is zero. This is why energy conservation issues are particularly difficult in General Relativity.  The energy is not only associated with the source, but is also present in spacetime itself.  This is the reason for Wheeler's description, and that's why many physicists also like it and repeat it.   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/14/2017 03:07 AM
My second point will address this general repulsion for the fact of “substance”. This situation is exactly the same as before Galileo, when there was this sense of being at the center of the universe. Physics is also anthropocentric because of its empirical credo which only recognizes the experience of things and events as criteria for existence. Strangely, the universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.7 billion years before we ever showed up to “experience it.”  The universe is not made of our experience of it. The universe is made of substance that exists without the need for our experience. In other words, the universe is impossible without a substance. The substance is the source of our experience and is what guarantees that things do not disappear outside our experience.

Granted, by definition, physics specifically studies our experience of the universe. But physics must realize the meaning of these limits and shall overcome them by understanding what it is missing, the substance that supports both his experience and the existence of the universe. Although it was originally ascribed to philosophy, the concept of substance and existence are too important to keep them separated from science. This early analytic partitioning has no place anymore and the substance has to be made part of a synthesis greater than physics. The universe is what exists and happens by itself, not what is experienced. Sure, science, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. have done great advances in our experience of the universe. But, we can do much better than that. We can understand logically what we are actually doing, not just empirically.

Marcel,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 04:32 PM
Mode frequency change due to loops

-- advice needed (I will mention you in my Acknowledgements!) --
I have an adaptable cavity with a loop on both endplates. One of the endplates is not in contact with the cavity wall and can be moved in order to change the length. I measured the transmission (S21) with a network analyzer (I posted about this earlier). The loops have a diameter of 15 mm and a separation from the endplate of 32 mm.
(these loops are not usable for exciting frustums etc., not narrow band enough)

My problem is now: I am uncertain which modes I am seeing.
E.g., the following (cavity diam. 98 mm, length 98 mm):
Frequency
 [MHz]                Mode       F calculated [MHz]
 3617                TE112?          3546
 3251                TE211?          3344
 2948                TM011?         2779

I expect them to be mainly TE-modes, due to the exciting loops. And, since they shift with changing cavity length, p≠0 (TE_mnp).
Or do I also see an interaction with 'the other cavity'? (behind the movable endplate)
More on this project later, I first need to know what modes it are.
Thanks, Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 04:34 PM
Mode frequency change due to loops

-- advice needed (I will mention you in my Acknowledgements!) --
I have an adaptable cavity with a loop on both endplates. One of the endplates is not in contact with the cavity wall and can be moved in order to change the length. I measured the transmission (S21) with a network analyzer (I posted about this earlier). The loops have a diameter of 15 mm and a separation from the endplate of 32 mm.
(these loops are not usable for exciting frustums etc., not narrow band enough)

My problem is now: I am uncertain which modes I am seeing.
E.g., the following (cavity diam. 98 mm, length 98 mm):
Frequency
 [MHz]                Mode       F calculated [MHz]
 3617                TE112?          3546
 3251                TE211?          3344
 2948                TM011?         2779

I expect them to be mainly TE-modes, due to the exciting loops. And, since they shift with changing cavity length, p≠0 (TE_mnp).
Or do I also see an interaction with 'the other cavity'? (behind the movable endplate)
More on this project later, I first need to know what modes it are.
Thanks, Peter

The spectrum.
[the frequencies differ a little from one measurement to another at the same given cavity lenght, since this latter parameter is not completely reproducable).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/14/2017 06:57 PM
I was listening to the Estes Park discussions and frequency scaling comes up. What do people think is the practical limit to frequency scaling in a device? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 09:10 PM
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.
There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statement

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

particularly true, now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that the cosmological constant is real (and so is dark energy).

Referring again to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

A spacetime completely free of any matter sources (Tμν=0) with a positive cosmological constant Λ>0 must always be curved , because for Tμν=0, the Ricci tensor Rμν will not vanish.

For Tμν=0, we have

Rμν - ½ R g μν  = - Λ g μν

In essence, you can think of the cosmological constant Λ as a source of energy, by bringing this Λ term to the right hand side.  That is one of the reasons is it called dark energy,  it curves space.

Thus Wheeler was right once again, considering dark energy, spacetime tells matter how to move: it tells matter to move as spacetime accelerates its expansion and carries matter with it. 

General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).  That is why Wheeler, Kip Thorne and others refer to General Relativity as "Geometrodynamics".  Spacetime without matter in General Relativity is not empty (it has gravitational waves and dark energy).   Spacetime tells matter how to move [due to dark energy and due to gravitational waves]; and matter tells spacetime how to curve as well (gravitation due to matter).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 09:22 PM
...
General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).
 ...

But... dark energy does not follow from GR, if I am right. For the rest you are right, good to emphasize: GR is not just a geometric description of gravity.
[or you must take the cosmological term to be dark energy]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 09:25 PM
...
General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).
 ...

But... dark energy does not follow from GR, if I am right. For the rest you are right, good to emphasize: GR is not just a geometric description of gravity.
It depends on what definition of dark energy you ascribe to.  Prof. Leonard Susskind and others conceive of dark energy as just the cosmological constant.  According to this view, it is easy to see my argument above, as a non-zero lambda  curves space and tells matter how to move (it carries matter with it as spacetime expands).(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/darkenergy-500px1.jpg)



However, others, for example those suscribing to the Chameleon field, propose this field, and hence a 5th force field as the nature of dark energy.  (See http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/is-dark-energy-a-chameleon-0824201523/ ).

There is no definite experimental confirmation yet as to which view is correct.  Prof. Leonard Susskind (last time I heard him give a lecture) expressed the firm opinion about the cosmological constant viewpoint.  Of course an outstanding problem to be explained is that quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large.  But that is a problem with quantum theory, not a problem with General Relativity.  People in General Relativity and Cosmology take the experimental value of the cosmological constant as an experimental fact in Cosmology and the calculation problem with quantum mechanics as something that will only be resolved once there is an acceptable theory of quantum gravity.  So, this view takes the cosmological constant as an experimental fact.  After all the nature of the Gravitation constant G, is also taken as an experimental fact of nature, and there is still no definite explanation as to the size of G.

When I was last week at the NIAC Orientation meeting at NASA Washington DC, I found this project most fascinating:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Dark_energy_interactions_solar_system_laboratory

I talked to Dr. Nan Yu (https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/people/n_yu) , from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  His proposal is fascinating, very impressive, as it would provide experimental confirmation as to whether dark energy is not just the cosmological constant but whether it is a separate field.  One of the ways it would verify this experimentally is by placing spaceship(s) at the saddle gravitational point between the Moon, the Earth (and the Sun), that lies between the Moon and the Earth, and conduct experiments (with lasers) with screened atomic particles inside a shielded container and with unscreened atomic particles outside the spaceship in free space.

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/niac2017_phase_i_nan_yu.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/15/2017 03:10 AM

from Reply #242,

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

(...)
from Reply #244,

In summary, keep "space" for what it is, just a tool. But don’t let “space” play any part in the working of the universe because it doesn’t exist. This means removing “space” from any explanatory or causality schemes.

(...)

from Reply #249,

My second point will address this general repulsion for the fact of “substance”. This situation is exactly the same as before Galileo, when there was this sense of being at the center of the universe. Physics is also anthropocentric because of its empirical credo which only recognizes the experience of things and events as criteria for existence. Strangely, the universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.7 billion years before we ever showed up to “experience it.”  The universe is not made of our experience of it. The universe is made of substance that exists without the need for our experience. In other words, the universe is impossible without a substance. The substance is the source of our experience and is what guarantees that things do not disappear outside our experience.

Granted, by definition, physics specifically studies our experience of the universe. But physics must realize the meaning of these limits and shall overcome them by understanding what it is missing, the substance that supports both his experience and the existence of the universe. Although it was originally ascribed to philosophy, the concept of substance and existence are too important to keep them separated from science. This early analytic partitioning has no place anymore and the substance has to be made part of a synthesis greater than physics. The universe is what exists and happens by itself, not what is experienced. Sure, science, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. have done great advances in our experience of the universe. But, we can do much better than that. We can understand logically what we are actually doing, not just empirically.

(...)

Marcel,

Good points in a fabulous discussion (pinching self to believe that I am a part of this) but...

to state that space does not exist, is such an immense leap of logic that it will not be logical at all to the unconvinced. Can we agree that human perception, the empirical experience, is valid yet incomplete within strict physical reality. If we accept GR then we owe it to the discussion to understand it. If we believe in a Machian universe it may help to agree that the vacuum is empty of anything other than charges.

Maybe we need a method of declaring our standpoints, so that we may defend them in a more transparent manner. I am a Machian, I don't believe in photons, I think that charge interactions explain inertia, gravity and electromagnetic action by coincidence of location in complex time. This allows me to interpret polarization and fringe effects as alignments through the dilations of spacetime that exist in the path that a photon would take if it had extension in time from any other than a single remote point perspective with an undefinable stationary location.

No, I do not expect anyone else to jump on board this twisted set of beliefs but I pursue them because they are the only ones that make any sense to me. Space exists in human perception and cannot be removed without destruction of our own argument. If energy conservation within GR is so complex then maybe there exists an explanation for emdrive thrust within GR but if that is not the case, we must explore every other logically feasible reality to make sense of it, in preference to throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Well done everyone, all this is valid debate. jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/15/2017 04:36 AM
Thanks JMM (spupeng7)

Allow me to repeat myself. The universe is logical and works according to logic. This fact requires that it be made of only one type of “stuff” or substance in order to work or be “operational” under logic. This means that the magnetic field, the electric field (and charges), the EM fields and Time are all various forms of this single substance. This is why I said earlier that in order for time to affect a clock, they both must be logically operational i.e. they must be of the same nature or same stuff i.e. the clock is made of time.

This is essentially why logic based mathematics are so efficient in describing natural processes (Wigner 1963). Up to now we didn’t need to know what the identity of the stuff is because it is all the same everywhere in various forms. Numbers, not identity mattered. But when our computations extend to the whole universe, we need to know what the stuff (substance) is because we are missing a lot of it i.e. dark energy, dark matter. We now need to know the identity of that stuff so that we can factor it into our computations

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/15/2017 05:47 AM
Thanks JMM (spupeng7)

Allow me to repeat myself. The universe is logical and works according to logic. This fact requires that it be made of only one type of “stuff” or substance in order to work or be “operational” under logic. This means that the magnetic field, the electric field (and charges), the EM fields and Time are all various forms of this single substance. This is why I said earlier that in order for time to affect a clock, they both must be logically operational i.e. they must be of the same nature or same stuff i.e. the clock is made of time.

This is essentially why logic based mathematics are so efficient in describing natural processes (Wigner 1963). Up to now we didn’t need to know what the identity of the stuff is because it is all the same everywhere in various forms. Numbers, not identity mattered. But when our computations extend to the whole universe, we need to know what the stuff (substance) is because we are missing a lot of it i.e. dark energy, dark matter. We now need to know the identity of that stuff so that we can factor it into our computations

Marcel,

My 2 cents...

I appreciate the desire to insist that the universe be logical and things work according to logic. IMO however, statements like "the clock is made of time" or "in order for time to affect a clock", are highly illogical to me. The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

Let's try to find some common ground, based on logic. As a scientific community, we have a perfectly good quantum field theory (QFT) referred to as; The Standard Model of Particle Physics. It describes what makes up all observable matter and energy in the Universe, i.e., Quantum Fields, not classical particles and waves.

Is this acceptable?

With this in mind, I offer you to choose anything by which to measure space and time. In other words; Choose your ruler and your clock.

I guarantee that whatever you choose, it can be tediously described by the Standard Model, or more simply by the macroscopic, classical approximation to it. It doesn't matter if you choose a wooden ruler or a laser beam, it's all the same. All Rulers and clocks are made of quantum fields and may be described by the QFT.

Logically, Space is what we measure with our ruler and Time is what we measure with our clock. There is no other choice. Therefore, variations in spacetime (i.e. curvature, waves, etc.) are variations in the quantum fields that Set The Scale of our Rulers and Clocks.

In my own theory, the interaction between quantum fields leads to power dissipation, which affects the scale of our instruments. The more densely packed the matter and energy becomes, the more dissipation there will be and this causes rulers to contract and oscillators (clocks) to slow down.

There is no need to quantize gravity. It is simply the natural evolution of the SM. I think, what is missing from GR is the notion that matter and vacuum are in equilibrium. Quantum fields are not billiard balls in an empty box. It is a dynamical system where the quantum vacuum and the matter fields are constantly exchanging photons, electrons, gluons and quarks, in equilibrium. (Power Radiated = Power Absorbed) When the power is not in a long term equilibrium state, we have gravitational drift (acceleration).

Todd
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/15/2017 02:50 PM
An improved method to perform EmDrive experiments

Dear NSF members,
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices. This has te following advantages:

– The heat generation on the measurement device will be one to even two orders of magnitude smaller;
– No DC currents (Lorentz forces), except for the microwave power detector,
– No need for magnetic materials (e.g., a microwave circulator) on the balance;
– A substantial reduction of the mass, by several kg’s, which improves the response time of the measurement device;
– Easier control of the frequency and power (no need for wireless control);
– No need for special amplifiers when measuring in a vacuum.

I have uploaded a technical report to Researchgate today: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317600132_An_improved_method_to_measure_microwave_induced_impulsive_forces_with_a_torsion_balance_or_weighing_scale
(also to arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999).
Yes, my real name is on it, Peter Lauwer is my pseudonym (but Peter is my second name), I had my reasons.

If you have any remarks, questions, suggestions, etc., please let me know.
I will be on holiday 17-27 June (and part of the time hiking&camping in England, so not everyday able to respond during that period).

Best regards,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/15/2017 07:04 PM
….

There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statement

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

particularly true, now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that the cosmological constant is real (and so is dark energy).

Referring again to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

A spacetime completely free of any matter sources (Tμν=0) with a positive cosmological constant Λ>0 must always be curved , because for Tμν=0, the Ricci tensor Rμν will not vanish.

For Tμν=0, we have

Rμν - ½ R g μν  = - Λ g μν

In essence, you can think of the cosmological constant Λ as a source of energy, by bringing this Λ term to the right hand side.  That is one of the reasons is it called dark energy,  it curves space.

Thus Wheeler was right once again, considering dark energy, spacetime tells matter how to move: it tells matter to move as spacetime accelerates its expansion and carries matter with it. 

General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).  That is why Wheeler, Kip Thorne and others refer to General Relativity as "Geometrodynamics".  Spacetime without matter in General Relativity is not empty (it has gravitational waves and dark energy).   Spacetime tells matter how to move [due to dark energy and due to gravitational waves]; and matter tells spacetime how to curve as well (gravitation due to matter).

Dr. Rodal,

The following portions of your above comment concern me, in that they represent assertions of certainty or fact, based on inherently theoretical conclusions and/or interpretations. And please accept that I am not challenging here whether these conclusions and/or interpretations represent reality, just that they should not be represented as having attained the status of facts.

“… now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) …”

“… A spacetime completely free of any matter sources … must always be curved , …”

First, and without comment on validity of those conclusions and interpretations.., as I am sure your know, virtually all of cosmology is, or at least at present is, inherently theoretical and relies heavily on the interpretation and projection of locally defined understanding of gravitation and the propagation of light, both of which occur within an essentially flat Spacetime, to the larger context of galaxies and the universe which can only be thought of and evaluated within the variable time and spacial scales, of GR and its associated 4D Spacetime metric. What we believe to be true, even if it is true should not be referred to as having attained the status of fact, until it has been directly observe to be fact.

In the second, instance noted above, when you reference, “A spacetime completely free of any matter sources…” you stear the discussion into an area that is inherently beyond our ability to ever test and confirm the theoretical assertion and perhaps, since it is understood that a gravitational field, propagating at the speed of light, extends at least to the light horizon beyond the location of any massive object, there is and can be no space within our observable universe completely free of any matter source. The argument is based on a theoretical extension of a portion of the involved math, to a hypothetical space or Spacetime, which cannot exist within the observable universe. Again though exploring the implications this portion of your comments can and almost certainly has value, in our attempts to understand the physical reality of the universe around us, it should not be thought of even approaching the status of a fact, or that it provides a basis to assert that this interpretation of General Relativity's field equation, represents reality.., as a matter of fact.

Setting my above interpretation (comments about what may or may not be fact) aside and attempting to return to my original intent…

In your later or following comments (quoted above), you seem to equate the existence of dark energy and gravitational waves with evidence that Spacetime exists as a causative component of gravitation. In response I would assert that whether we are talking about the presence of, matter, dark energy, gravitational waves or even the quantum vacuum or vacuum energy, a ZPF etc., we are talking about things that exist or may exist in space over time, and whose dynamic interaction can be or is described by the Spacetime model. It is the distribution of matter and energy that are at least a causative component of gravitation, not the Spacetime model that describes that distribution.

Step back for a moment and imagine a room containing a clock which can be seen from anywhere in the room. The clock represents an indication of the progression of time and the length, width and height of the room establish a 4D special frame of reference. Since the room is small relative to the speed of light both with respect to time and the 4 spatial dimensions the room can be treated as defining a flat Minkowski spacetime. It is unlikely that anyone would assert that by describing the location or motion of any object inside the room as being the result of the time and spatial measurements. In effect when one asserts that Spacetime, within the context of GR, is the cause of the location of or how an object moves, they are asserting that just because the time and spatial dimensions involved are variable, endows that Spacetime with causative attributes.

My assertion has been and remains that, it is the effect of the distribution of matter and energy that affects how an object will move through a gravitational field and what the location specific potential of the gravitational field may be… And that GR and Spacetime are descriptive of just how the distribution of matter and energy affect both the location specific potential and the motion over time, of matter and perhaps even energy, due to a gravitational field. In a lay context the words, "Spacetime tells matter how to move..." seems to suggest that Spacetime itself has some physical or sudo-physical property that allows it to directly affect the path of an object through a gravitational field, it is the distribution of matter and energy, rather than a description of its distribution that affects the path of an object through a gravitational field.

I believe that when WarpTech says,


….

... The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

….

he goes a little to far, only in his assertion that Spacetime is reduced to a mathematical convenience. I do agree that both GR and spacetime are descriptive rather than causative, but more than just convenient, they have proven to be both descriptive and predictive, useful and powerful tools.

I don't believe that most of this discussion would be important if the discussion were not open to the lay public. Though theoretical physicists of differing views may use these terms and arguments without detailed clarifications, they generally understand the differing definitions and interpretations of one another, at least to a greater extent than the lay reader. Where the discussion is being held in a open forum some greater clarity of the difference between what has been proven and what remains a matter of interpretation is more important.

You are correct when you list physicists who share the interpretation you have presented. It is not a perspective I have not shared in the past. What I would say today is that, that perspective/interpretation is one that is generally made while interpreting the world through rose colored glasses, in that the interpretations and conclusions seem limited to evaluation within the context of a modern interpretation of GR, and without care as too lay interpretations.

One further point, it seems to me that if one accepts GR and Spacetime as descriptive rather than causative it does nothing to undermine the success of GR and Spacetime. What it might do is open the way to the possibility of, if not a unification of GR and quantum mechanics, at lest the inclusion of mechanisms originating within some part of quantum mechanics, as functional components of an underlying mechanism, resulting in what we experience as gravitation. IOW as a desiptive model Spacetime could incorporate mechanisms originating as quantum phenomena, as sources of the energy component of the field equations. The equations of the quantum mechanisms do not have to lead to or even be consistent with the field equation of General Relativity, as long as the energy associated with the quantum mechanism can be incorporated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/15/2017 08:03 PM
...

My assertion has been and remains that, it is the effect of the distribution of matter and energy that affects how an object will move through a gravitational field and what the location specific potential of the gravitational field may be… And that GR and Spacetime are descriptive of just how the distribution of matter and energy affect both the location specific potential and the motion over time, of matter and perhaps even energy, due to a gravitational field. In a lay context the words, "Spacetime tells matter how to move..." seems to suggest that Spacetime itself has some physical or sudo-physical property that allows it to directly affect the path of an object through a gravitational field, it is the distribution of matter and energy, rather than a description of its distribution that affects the path of an object through a gravitational field.

I believe that when WarpTech says,


….

... The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

….

he goes a little to far, only in his assertion that Spacetime is reduced to a mathematical convenience. I do agree that both GR and spacetime are descriptive rather than causative, but more than just convenient, they have proven to be both descriptive and predictive, useful and powerful tools.

I don't believe that most of this discussion would be important if the discussion were not open to the lay public. Though theoretical physicists of differing views may use these terms and arguments without detailed clarifications, they generally understand the differing definitions and interpretations of one another, at least to a greater extent than the lay reader. Where the discussion is being held in a open forum some greater clarity of the difference between what has been proven and what remains a matter of interpretation is more important.

...
Since you still disagree with Wheeler's statement

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

let me make one last attempt  8) at convincing you how correct Wheeler is (co-author of  -arguably- the most highly regarded textbook in General Relativity  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_(book); and everybody would agree.. the heaviest text  :)  ).

Try to put yourself in the shoes of somebody trying to solve Einstein's field equations:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

These equations contain covariant derivatives and other tensor expressions containing the spacetime metric gμν

But for a yet unsolved problem, you do not know at all what the spacetime metric gμν is.  The spacetime metric is a function of the energy-momentum.  You do not know the structure of spacetime before solving the field equation !  And this structure of spacetime may change dynamically, as a function of time, as in gravitational waves

It is therefore in principle impossible first for you to specify the spacetime distribution of matter and from this to calculate the spacetime structure.  The structure of space (curvature) and the motion of any matter in this space constitutes a dynamical system whose elements are so closely coupled with one another that they can only be solved simultaneously !.

The space is not the stage for the physical event, but rather an aspect of the interaction and motion of matter in General Relativity.
(Stephani)

It is inaccurate to assert that

Quote from: OnlyMe
"Spacetime describes how matter moves"
in General Relativity.  You cannot solve problems in General Relativity that way, because you would be ignoring the close coupling.

How do you know what is the structure of spacetime? what is the metric of spacetime? It is not a matter of description.  Spacetime itself is deformed by matter, and this curvature of spacetime is unknown ahead of solving the field equation.   

In General Relativity one is not describing something in terms of a known geometry.  The geometry itself is unknown, and this geometry has to be solved in a highly coupled nonlinear differential equation.

Think for a moment about the following fact:

The stress-energy-momentum tensor Tμν which you may regard as the source of the curvature of spacetime, itself contains the unknown spacetime metric gμν

What Wheeler is talking about when he wrote:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

is this dynamic close coupling of all terms in the GR equations:  the structure of spacetime is itself unknown prior to solving the problem.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/15/2017 08:24 PM
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results. 



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/15/2017 08:41 PM
Todd,
A clock is not different from any other measuring instrument, like a voltmeter for example. It has to interact with or be “affected” in some way by what it measures. A clock will do so when moved up or down in a gravitational field where it is “affected” by the local rate of time where it is placed. That is logical. Otherwise, we are talking Magic.

“Logically, Space is what we measure with our ruler and Time is what we measure with our clock.” Practical, not logical.

Seriously, Todd. These are all place names; energy, mass, time, gravity, the quantum, etc. We measure and calculate them all to the highest precision but no one knows exactly what energy is, what mass is or even how gravity really works etc. We create “definitions” in order to make their meaning as “finite” as we can, but they are just restraining orders, not understanding.

Take E=MC2 for example. A magic formula? No, but it works! Although it apparently is illogical by equating different things, it is accepted as “logical” under the unspoken understanding that all these things are in fact, deep down, different forms of a single type of stuff that can operate logically on each other. Without this admission, the empiricism of physics is no different from believing in magic, and its stubbornness is akin to a dogmatic religion.

  The above equation is one of the great steps in reductionnism that science has made in the last 300 years. Logically we already know where it is going to end, only one type of stuff. But physics can’t go there because being an observer based science, the observer and its contribution will always be part of it. The “space” and “time” as defined above are true and choiceless in the observer’s reality which is its own and ultimate barrier. If we could just get out of the way for a moment, we would understand this underlying reality.

I don’t call for any change, removal of anything in physics. This is a necessary add on. Just to be conscious of the real limits of physics and to advance knowingly beyond them. And, maybe, we won’t have to sit good men and women anymore on tons of explosives to send them into space and casually expect them to return as burning meteor or crashing in Kazakhstan,...... and still think we are smart.
 
Yes, this discourse has its place with the EM drive development. Keep pounding at it!  Per aspera ad astra!

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/15/2017 08:56 PM
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results.

I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/15/2017 09:33 PM
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/15/2017 09:39 PM
...
What Wheeler is talking about when he wrote:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

is this dynamic close coupling of all terms in the GR equations:  the structure of spacetime is itself unknown prior to solving the problem.
One of the most enduring works in physics, with the pithy statements that convey so much, so accurately.

While the mathematics expresses this deftly, the way we express mathematics to convey it says as much about the way we represent mathematics itself. Often disagreement here is more about form than substance, because there are many that either are distracted by the form and miss the substance, or because the way they "understand" the substance puts them at odds with the form it is expressed with.

In abstract mathematics one considers numerous different ways to represent the same thing, yet some of them hold unique advantages in form, a simple example is that of operators like Hamiltonian's.

In mathematical physics, developments of consistent systems/geometries/other retain these as advantages, often to consider unifying disparate areas. Huge arguments erupt from this kind of work.

So its fine to "have issues". As long as you can work, like these above cited disciplines, in "equivalence" to the same work.

Which in the case of Wheeler is a hard act to top. It still ends up:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Now, keep in mind, that "move" and "curve" here to an abstract mathematician or in the field of mathematical physics ... are of enormous scope and effect, non trivial.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zen-in on 06/16/2017 06:58 AM
A friend suggested the following experimental method to me when I told him about the EM drive research using torsion pendulums.   I don't know if he has done any tests with a torsion pendulum.

One way to cancel out DC biases due to heating, Lorentz forces etc. is to drive the torsion pendulum so that it oscillates with a constant amplitude.   The driving force has to be closely regulated and angular displacement data vs time would be collected.    According to my friend this is the method used by present day researchers who attempt to measure small forces with a torsion pendulum.   He worked at HP for most of his career (when it really was HP) and has always had good technical insight.   I asked him if he would like to join this forum and explain this idea but he declined.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 09:31 AM
A friend suggested the following experimental method to me when I told him about the EM drive research using torsion pendulums.   I don't know if he has done any tests with a torsion pendulum.

One way to cancel out DC biases due to heating, Lorentz forces etc. is to drive the torsion pendulum so that it oscillates with a constant amplitude.   The driving force has to be closely regulated and angular displacement data vs time would be collected.    According to my friend this is the method used by present day researchers who attempt to measure small forces with a torsion pendulum.   He worked at HP for most of his career (when it really was HP) and has always had good technical insight.   I asked him if he would like to join this forum and explain this idea but he declined.

This usually applies to very small torsion balances. The balances we are working with, have periods of several minutes. I don't think it is useful to operate these in oscillating mode (yes, for veééérrrryyyy small forces, like when measuring the gravitational constant, a few orders of magnitude smaller forces then we are talking about, then you usually measure in the free swinging mode).
But measuring these small forces is not the problem (mine has a threshold of the order of 0.2 micronewton), it are the disturbing influences (heat, currents) that are the problem.
So when I wrote 'Improved method to measure...' I meant the whole setup (and mainly having the disturbing components (rf amplifier etc.) outside the measurement device.
Cheers, 'Peter'
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 09:32 AM
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning
that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real
and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.


On the unification of GRT and QM :

Gravity is neither a fundamental force, nor a spacetime curvature.
There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field. Magnetons and gravitons are at best
virtual particles only.

As we shall see below, quantum gravity and quantum antigravity
are essentially not so much different from electromagnetism.
This would explain the reason why there has not been a successful
unification
of Einsteinian gravity with electromagnetism.

Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.

   
The theoretical basis for quantum gravity
and quantum antigravity are the Minkowski’s equations :
 
https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/quantum-gravity/ (https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/quantum-gravity/)
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/16/2017 05:40 PM
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 06:12 PM
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   

Briljant!  8)

[edit: it was a hasty reply just before I went of for holiday. I see you already mentioned this But depends a bit on how much you want the pendulum arm allow to move.
If you apply this at the center of the pendulum, disturbing (electromagnetic) forces may be less.
]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 09:50 PM
Guys,

Email from Roger Shawyer and Power Point presentation as received.
Please circulate as per Roger's request.

Enjoy,
Phil


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 12:04 AM
Subject: Defence Academy EmDrive presentation
To: [email protected]


Hi Phil

Thought you might like to see an edited version of an EmDrive presentation that I made in Feb this year to the UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham. Some slides describing defence applications of second and third generation EmDrive technology have been removed.

I have recently been given clearance to put this version of the presentation into the public domain, so feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested.

Note that in slide 12, I have revealed that a representative of your RAAF was present at the Pentagon briefing.

Best regards

Roger
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 10:19 PM
Guys,

Email from Roger Shawyer and Power Point presentation as received.
Please circulate as per Roger's request.

Enjoy,
Phil

Guys,

Interesting image in the presentation which may indicate why Prof Tajmar build the EmDrive he did?

Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/16/2017 10:40 PM
Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?

The way the slide is written and the image placed, it definitely looks like Prof Yang's. This would be the first public image and one I have been waiting for a long time.

I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/16/2017 11:02 PM
Although there are some minor differences in details and dimensions, the general buildup of the device does indeed match best with Yang's first experiment.
(fe the 2 regulator screws on the wave guide)

and if it is not Yang's device, it sure bears a striking resemblance...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/16/2017 11:02 PM
Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?

The way the slide is written and the image placed, it definitely looks like Prof Yang's. This would be the first public image and one I have been waiting for a long time.

I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D
Shawyer should have given you and NasaSpaceFlight.com forum credit for using your image !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 11:05 PM
Although there are some minor differences in details and dimensions, the general buildup of the device does indeed match best with Yang's first experiment.
(fe the 2 regulator screws on the wave guide)

and if it is not Yang's device, it sure bears a striking resemblance...

Agree.

At least we probably now know why Prof Tajmar built what he did.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 12:11 AM
Should add that Roger was invited to present the PPT at the UK Defence Academy:
http://www.da.mod.uk/

Informing future UK Defence officers of that they will need to deal with in coming years?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2017 01:43 AM
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 03:02 AM
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1433765;image) compared to the NASA and DIY builds.  If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010043-350x274.jpg)

the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:(http://emdrive.com/images/thruster1.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/17/2017 10:00 AM
I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D

Without referring to the maker?
Tjsk, tjsk, tjsk. Not so nice of Roger.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2017 01:41 PM

There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field.
There is a particle associated with the magnetic force. It is called the photon.
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.

As just demonstrated​, you don't understand electromagnetism up to the current level of science. Before you make suggestions about unifying forces, you should learn some more. (I would need to learn more too before I can make such suggestions too. At least beyond stating that either gravity​ or quantum will probably need to be reformulated. I don't have an educated position on gravitons.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 02:36 PM
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   

Jamie:

I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines.  The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying WITH the frustum as they would in free space.  That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did. 

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 03:01 PM
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1433765;image) compared to the NASA and DIY builds.  If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010043-350x274.jpg)

the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:(http://emdrive.com/images/thruster1.jpg)


Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 03:10 PM
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

We have:

* designer(s) used much thicker walls and end plates that NASA and DIY builds (this would enhance force according to Minotti's gravitational theory)

* designer(s) made the big end of a different material: apparently copper.  Thereby increasing the mass density by a factor of 3.3 times and the conductivity of the big end by a factor of 1.7 times.

metal   density (g/cm3)   Conductivity σ (S/m) at20 °C

aluminum   2.70                                           3.50×107
copper        8.96                                          5.96×107


(density of copper)/(density of aluminum): 3.32

(conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of aluminum): 1.70
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/17/2017 03:51 PM
Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.


My distinguished Quantum Gravity,

LOL...none of the above is fully understood either. We barely can explain 5% of the universe so apparently we have a long ways to go.

Impossible? No. Improbable. Yes. (ref. Holmes Law)

Invoking 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.


We are discussing emDrive producing a change in momentum. Where's inertia? Inertia is not understood. The assumption that gravity is "equivalent" to inertia keeps one from understanding the universe. Where are the closely coupled equations for gravity and inertia, especially in view of entanglement.

Is inertia equivalent to gravity? Equivalence has a limit. Keep in mind that equivalence works in gedanken where one is free to think anything. One has to look at Mach theory and perhaps other theories to understand Inertia.

Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.

Some scientists suggest a 5th force, magnetism, separate from the EM type. And there may be more forces that cannot be explained nor fit.

Did you like Gravitation and Inertia (Cuifolini and Wheeler, 1995 pp. 498)

For QG, do you prefer the QG version of Susskind or of Smolin?

David M
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 04:03 PM
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

Jose':

Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN. 

"Fear.  China and the US take an interest.

Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive

In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input

In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"

Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article?  Too much mass??

BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.

Best,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/17/2017 08:08 PM
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results.

I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I think your trying to transfer energy from one antenna in the cavity to another.  The other antenna is free to move in the cavity and connected to the EM Drive?  This allows for contactless transfer of energy to the EM Drive? 

One problem may be if the 2nd-ary antenna is free to move, and resides in a part of the cavity where a magnetic field exists, then by nature the antenna will be repelled by the changing magnetic field.  Only when the antenna resides between two changing magnetic fields B-min (E-max) will it not experience any push.  If the EM drive does experience a thrust it may push it into a changing magnetic field, which will push back reducing the magnitude of displacement.  For very small displacements it may be negligible, so practical. 

I'm not quite sure I fully understand your configuration but am making a guess at what it appears to be. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/17/2017 08:46 PM
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431993;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431995;image)

I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle.  See attached graphic file. 
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle.  Sorry for multiple changes.  Should be correct now. 

 using 30 reflections and the equation for dh  and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+...   ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
 959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
 50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm

It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light.  The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
 There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.

 Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3226451701232513783&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)


(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1432358;image)

I did some more work in combining the amplification of resonant force on a pendulum and the amplification of displacement via a laser reflected off a pendulum multiple times. 

The ratio of displacement of the laser beam over a displacement of the pendulum give a multiplication factor showing an increased sensitivity for observation.  The equation was simplified a bit to the attached image below as "dh-dl.png.  z = height beam travels after many reflections, r = number of cycles the laser makes in returning to its originating mirror, dl = the physical displacement of the bottom of the pendulum, L = distance of pendulum mirror from wall mirror, t1 = initial upward angle of laser = atan(z/(r*2*L))

For 100 cycles of the laser up two parallel mirrors, counted by adjusting the angle of the laser from 1 reflection cycle to 100, we have a dh/dl amplification of displacement of the pendulum about 10200 times amplification. 

a displacement of the pendulum bottom of 0.000001m would cause a deflection of the laser of about 1.02cm. 

Combining this with the pendulum amplification of force to cause displacement "displacement_max"=A/(2*c*w) where A is force, c is pendulum damping constant, and "w" is resonant frequency*2*pi in radians.  Assuming maximum resolvable laser beam displacemnet is 0.002m or 2mm = "displacement_max", c=0.01, w=0.5 this gives us a force sensitivity of about :

(0.002)=10200*A/(2*c*w) solving --> A=0.002*2*c*w/10200 ~ 1.96E-9 newtons using si units +- multiples of this force.

Hopefully no glaring errors here. 

The device may possibly be incorporated into a vacuum and in air the resonant behavior should eliminate thermal thrust.  Mu-Metal shielding should eliminate EM interference from outside/inside sources. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/17/2017 09:44 PM

Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

It is more like a silver coated article than an aluminum one. If Yang made her article with brass, it makes sense to coat it with silver for lower surface electrical resistance. Look at the black residues on it. It might be silver sulfide that we often see on silverware.

Quote

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 09:59 PM
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

Jose':

Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN. 

"Fear.  China and the US take an interest.

Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive

In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input

In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"

Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article?  Too much mass??

BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.

Best,

Paul,

I agree with FlyBy that the imaged thruster is probably the unit built by Prof Yang for her last reported test. That unit was powered via a coax feed from a soild state rf amp with freq control. Her earlier units were feed via waveguide. It is clear there is a high power coax connector on the unit and a E field sensor through the big end plate.

Attached is the image FlyBy produced, which shows how close Prof Yang's build was to her drawing of the coax fed unit.

We both understand why that unit would produce little thrust, as did Prof Tajmar's very similar unit. Not a good idea to cut a large hole in the frustum side wall.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/17/2017 10:50 PM
There are a few differences :

1) the waveguide regulator screws on the drawing sit at the top, where as the real thing has them on the side.

2) the flanges that hold the "waveguide coupling window" are a lot larger on the real thing, as opposed to the drawing.

However, at first impression, the overall proportions do seem to matchup with the drawing...

It could be they've altered the drawing slightly to make it more "readable" and easier to understand what all the components are. A top drawing the regulator screws doesn't tell much, you know.

If it is not Yang's device, then they are most certainly related, or one served as guideline for the other.

It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...



Maybe our Chinese friend, who claims to be a former student of prof. Yang, could confirm if this is the device he has been working on?


Anyway, interesting to see some new data, after all this time...

Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 11:32 PM
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 11:49 PM
....
It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...
...
Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
If the rest is silver coated, why not make the whole thing silver coated?

if it (silver coating) is good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander ?

(Silver has 6% higher conductivity than copper)

Material   σ (S/m) at20 °C
Silver     6.30×107
Copper   5.96×107

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06 

only 6% difference in conductivity
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/18/2017 02:32 AM

(...)

Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.

(...)


solid? All I see in QM is unresolved paradox. I do, however, like your quotes  :)

Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/18/2017 02:41 AM

(...)

Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

(...)


In which case you could power it with your piston engine backup generator and it could fly  :-\
I like Shawyer's comment that we may end up building the airframes out of pressed steel.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/18/2017 04:55 AM
Reply from Oyzw in reference to the possible image of a Prof Yang coax Rf driven EmDrive build.

Seems he has confirmed it is Prof Yang's coax fed EmDrive build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/18/2017 05:41 AM
Thanks for your post. In the future if you could use complete sentences http://study.com/academy/lesson/complete-and-incomplete-sentences-examples-lesson-quiz.html in posts that would be appreciated -- meaning people don't have extra cognitive load associated with trying to summize a logical meaning.

Tia

Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/18/2017 08:01 AM
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Are you sure you did not make any magnitude error there?
These numbers, (50gf/100W) do seem HUGE, compared to what we've seen so far...

My first reaction is a certain degree of disbelieve, mainly because apart from words , you did not show anything yet.
But at the same time, I can not believe that you, as an experienced engineer, would make all these things up as a fantasy. You often make big  (sometimes inaccurate) claims and make a lot of noise/fuzz. But i can  not imagine that you would deliberately lie on this...

So.... I'm perplexed by the numbers you put forward, not knowing what to make of it...

IF - and i can't stress the conditional enough - your numbers reflect a reality that you got an EMdrive producing 5N/kW, then this is a huge paradigm shift. All dedicated forum dwellers inhere know that...
I wish i could believe it, but my modest science education dictates i need proof before I can accept this a real thing...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/18/2017 09:46 AM
I concur on what has been said already.
Moreover:
Have you seen how in Yang's drawing those angled lines, showing where plain materials are located, are considerably thinner only for the big end plate, explicitly suggesting a different material used in here than the rest of the construction? Although it was right there under our nose for years, we missed that. This is exactly like in the picture of the test article with a thick copper big end plate sitting on top of a cavity + waveguide made of a different material (maybe aluminum or heated/plated brass).

I am almost certain it is indeed Yang's EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/18/2017 10:13 AM
Dr.Rodal -

A simple reason to have one end of the frustum with a Copper surface and the other Silver is to deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry. By all accounts geometrical asymmetry is important, as may be asymmetry introduced by dielectrics. Introducing further asymmetry by using metals with different resistivity might help. Seems to imply someone knows, or at least has a theory, as to how the asymmetry drives the force. Or maybe they have been listening here, because I did suggest something similar a few ?thousand? posts back🙂 !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/18/2017 12:56 PM
Dr.Rodal -

A simple reason to have one end of the frustum with a Copper surface and the other Silver is to deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry. By all accounts geometrical asymmetry is important, as may be asymmetry introduced by dielectrics. Introducing further asymmetry by using metals with different resistivity might help. Seems to imply someone knows, or at least has a theory, as to how the asymmetry drives the force. Or maybe they have been listening here, because I did suggest something similar a few ?thousand? posts back🙂 !
Yes, a number of us in early EMDrive threads have previously suggested to build the ends of materials having different electric permittivity or different magnetic permeability (depending on whether the mode is TM or TE), but as I wrote:

Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
If the rest is silver coated, why not make the whole thing silver coated?

if it (silver coating) is good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander ?

(Silver has 6% higher conductivity than copper)

Material   σ (S/m) at20 °C
Silver     6.30×107
Copper   5.96×107

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06 

only 6% difference in conductivity
If the purpose was to

Quote from: RERT
deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry
,

and the material for the body was brass, why coat it with silver ? you will have much more electrical asymmetry using brass and copper:



Table of electrical conductivity for different materials considered in Yang's EM Drive

Material   σ (S/m) at 20 °C

Silver        6.30×107    (Silver coating on body, suggested by Potomac Neuron)
Copper      5.96×107     (Copper big end plate evident in photograph)
Aluminum  3.69×107      (Aluminum body suggested by Star-Drive)
Brass        1.59×107      (Brass body stated by Yang in her papers)

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06   
Ratio of (conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of aluminum) = 1.62 
Ratio of (conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of brass) = 3.75



Compared with copper and brass, copper and silver (suggested by Potomac Neuron) have practically identical conductivity (only 6% difference), while copper and (uncoated) brass (specified by Yang) have the greatest difference in conductivity: a factor of 3.75 times.

If the brass would have been coated with silver the " electrical asymmetry" would have been greatly reduced from 3.75 times to only 6% difference in conductivity.

If Yang's EM Drive was made of aluminum (as suggested by Star-Drive) instead of brass, the "electrical asymmetry" between copper and aluminum would have been a factor of 1.62.

Silver and copper have the smallest electrical asymmetry of the possible materials that have been discussed for Yang's EM Drive.

Copper and (uncoated) brass (the material that Yang wrote her EM Drive was made of) -not silver- have the greatest electrical asymmetry.

----------
PS1: finally, if the brass (specified by Yang) would have been coated with silver (as suggested by others),  it would probably be coated on the internal surfaces of the cavity (which are not shown) instead of being coated on the external surfaces of the cavity shown in the photograph.  If the principle was to attain the greatest electrical asymmetry, there would be no such silver coating of the brass (anywhere), as the greatest asymmetry is produced by copper and brass.  And there would be no purpose in coating the outside surface of the brass with silver. The simplest interpretation of the data then appears to be that the body was made of uncoated brass (as specified by Yang in her papers) and that the big end endplate was made of copper (which as pointed out by flux_capacitor https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691170#msg1691170  was something shown in the drawing).  With a brass body and a copper big end, the greatest asymmetry in electrical conductivity is achieved, and such construction (brass and copper) would be consistent with Yang's papers and her drawing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/18/2017 02:57 PM
Why are we sure that the material shown in the picture looks like silver-coated brass? What if the dark patterns were only due to overheating of uncoated brass (see TheTraveller's post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1690858#msg1690858))? After all Yang pumped up to 2.5 kW of electric power in the cavity, multiple times. This is quite a lot.

I also think her cavity, if it corresponds to the later one used in her last nullified low-power test, is the same cavity used in her previous high-power tests, retrofitted to use a coaxial feed. If it was another, different cavity, why put a coaxial feed onto a WR340 waveguide? Shawyer used either a waveguide (Demonstrator with a magnetron) or a coaxial feed plugged directly onto the cavity side wall (Flight Thruster with TWTAs), not a combination of both.

So I think Yang used this cavity first with a magnetron feeding RF through the "giant" waveguide (giant wrt the cavity size, like Tajmar's cavity, a not so clever design IMHO) and later fitted a coaxial input onto the existing soldered waveguide to use a lighter and lower power steady state RF power source. Not a smart move in my opinion: the thick wall cavity + its giant waveguide seems very heavy to be used on a low-power torsion pendulum test stand. Maybe the large weight was the reason why Yang had to put not one, but three stiff wires… that maybe ruined the sensitivity of the setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 06/18/2017 03:39 PM
Sim of Yang's frustum wall angles...will have to check back for the frequency. I suppose we could get more energy focused on the small plate by shortening the length? Not to mention (if memory serves) I believe she reported TE012 not 3.   fl
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/18/2017 03:59 PM

only 6% difference in conductivity

What if the pics are just some kind of "decoys" (or mockups) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/18/2017 06:02 PM
...For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Dr. White is giving a 40 minute presentation on the EM Drive and White's QV pilot wave theory, and chairing a Breakthrough Propulsion session next week in New York's workshop:

http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/physicsworkshop/

Foundations of Interstellar Studies
Workshop at City Tech, CUNY
June 13-15, 2017, New York, NY USA

Day 3: Breakthrough Propulsion, June 15, 2017
Time   Topic   Speaker   Organization
08.40   Welcome by Session Chairman: Harold White
08.50   1. Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Measured in Vacuum    Harold G. White   NASA JSC Eagleworks
09.30   2. Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Drive    Heidi Fearn et al.   California State University Fullerton
10.10   3. Entanglement and Chameleon Acceleration    Glen A. Robertson   GAResearch LLC
From what I heard (I was not there), Dr. White only talked about his theory and did not present any further experiments with the EM Drive at the Foundations of Interstellar Studies, Workshop at City Tech, CUNY.

Also, unfortunately no video was taken of the presentations

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4mpI9Aryc
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2017 06:10 PM
Is it possible his interest has departed from practical experimentation and is now purely theoretical?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/18/2017 07:06 PM
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Are you sure you did not make any magnitude error there?
These numbers, (50gf/100W) do seem HUGE, compared to what we've seen so far...

My first reaction is a certain degree of disbelieve, mainly because apart from words , you did not show anything yet.
But at the same time, I can not believe that you, as an experienced engineer, would make all these things up as a fantasy. You often make big  (sometimes inaccurate) claims and make a lot of noise/fuzz. But i can  not imagine that you would deliberately lie on this...

So.... I'm perplexed by the numbers you put forward, not knowing what to make of it...

IF - and i can't stress the conditional enough - your numbers reflect a reality that you got an EMdrive producing 5N/kW, then this is a huge paradigm shift. All dedicated forum dwellers inhere know that...
I wish i could believe it, but my modest science education dictates i need proof before I can accept this a real thing...

I have to concur with Flyby. As someone who has been following this topic off and on since the very first EMDrive thread on this forum, and the Mach Effect discussion before that, I have to say that results on the scale you are reporting represent a fundamental breakthrough, taking this as yet unproven phenomenon to the level where it becomes visible to the naked eye.

NASA, the Pentagon, and who knows who else should be beating your door down soon, if true.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/18/2017 09:07 PM
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.

Q is directly correlated with the number of times the photon transits back and forth yet it seems you imply Q is not important.  I want to argue that what you might be saying is that the number of stored photons is more important than Q.  So stored energy.  This implies more power or energy per sec or larger cavities. 

If Q isn't important then you might agree that increased energy lost to something else would reduce the Q?

Do you have any experimental evidence you could share with is that might indicate cavity specs, energy fed, in what manner, and with indication of resulting forces?  Images also perhaps?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/18/2017 10:47 PM
For folks on this thread, a human interest story about a young man who graduated today with a degree in Physics - at age 15:

'Harter’s college thesis, “Implications of the Nambu Jona Lasinio Model with a New
Regularization Renormalization Method,” discusses his work with Professor Guang Jiong Ni to extend an existing model that describes the interactions between subatomic particles. The aim is to bring the model to the point where it would generate specific quantitative results to measure the mass created by two massless particles.'

http://itmakesmecrazy.hardinwoods.com/2017/06/momentum-on-side-of-15-year-old-physics.html (http://itmakesmecrazy.hardinwoods.com/2017/06/momentum-on-side-of-15-year-old-physics.html)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/18/2017 11:49 PM
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.

Q is directly correlated with the number of times the photon transits back and forth yet it seems you imply Q is not important.  I want to argue that what you might be saying is that the number of stored photons is more important than Q.  So stored energy.  This implies more power or energy per sec or larger cavities. 

If Q isn't important then you might agree that increased energy lost to something else would reduce the Q?

Do you have any experimental evidence you could share with is that might indicate cavity specs, energy fed, in what manner, and with indication of resulting forces?  Images also perhaps?

The Q is important as it sets the 5xTC decay time that sets the life time of the trapped photon wavelets.

HOWEVER Q and number of transits, end plate adsorb and emit events, are not directly related.

What I have discovered is it is better to go for high Q via using a larger big end plate diameter than in lengthening the cavity. Ie a TE019 cavity has higher Q but lower number of transits over the 5xTC decay time and lower thrust vs a TE013 lower Q but higher number of transits cavity.

My work is now focused on TE011 cavities with big end plates as the modelling shows they can deliver higher Q and higher number of transits.

Have yet to build a TE011 spherical end plate cavity as building the highly curved small and big end plates to a optical tolerance of 1/10 wave accuracy is not an easy nor low cost task.

You might notice this design is similar to Roger's cryo cavity. It seems I'm still a few steps behind him in evolving the design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 05:54 AM
Do we have technical drawing of the 3G patent (third generation) Mr. Shawyer mentioned in his presentation please? I found only the 2G (second generation).

I wonder how Mr. Shawyer overcame that High Q acceleration problem.

According to common sources Internal Doppler shift was observed by using photonic crystal. Is it possible that they found out way how to modify this photonic crystal for the specific photonic waves? I would love to  read some scientific articles about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/19/2017 06:39 AM
If you consider the drawing "superconductive cavity with piezoelectric compensation" as a 2.0 EMdrive (as seen in TT's post, last image) design, then I can say that not so long ago, a new drawing surfaced with an YBCO on safire substrate on big end and special shaped small end (was not parabolic, to mu surprise).
Also new to this design is the relocation of the RF feed to the centre of small end and use of a helicoidal antenna. Also to be noted is that the supercooling only happens on the big end of the fustrum.

If that is to be considered a 3.0 design (?), that's something only R.Shawyer can answer...

If not, then he'll need to explain where the difference or evolution is to be observed between 2.0 and 3.0....

(attached is the 3.0 ?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/19/2017 07:00 AM

HOWEVER Q and number of transits, end plate adsorb and emit events, are not directly related.


Sorry, proportional to.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 07:21 AM
If you consider the drawing "superconductive cavity with piezoelectric compensation" as a 2.0 EMdrive (as seen in TT's post, last image) design, then I can say that not so long ago, a new drawing surfaced with an YBCO on safire substrate on big end and special shaped small end (was not parabolic, to mu surprise).
Also new to this design is the relocation of the RF feed to the centre of small end and use of a helicoidal antenna. Also to be noted is that the supercooling only happens on the big end of the fustrum.

If that is to be considered a 3.0 design (?), that's something only R.Shawyer can answer...

If not, then he'll need to explain where the difference or evolution is to be observed between 2.0 and 3.0....

(attached is the 3.0 ?)

Exactly my toughts Flyby. I think this is 2G (second generation)

Link for the PDF is here.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647

Mr. Phil - can you ask Mr. Shawyer about the 3G (third generation) EmDrive? Can he share some technical drawing or not yet? 3rd generation will have very important aspect in it. It is how they overcame that High Q acceleration problem. It is crucial to compare then 2nd generation and 3rd generation desing / technical drawing.

Mod: Flyby. I think you are correct and this can be 3rd generation. The date would suggest it. As Mr. Shawyer wrote that in 2014 Jan it was in theoretical stage. Date of filling of the patent is 7.4.2015.

Also there is a lot of mentions of that High Q problem.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/19/2017 08:01 AM
Btw, I found a pdf version of Shawyer's powerpoint presentation.(more convenient maybe?)
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Shrivenham-presentation-V.3.pdf

Note that the presentation was held on February 7th 2017.
So why the huge time delay?

And let's stay honest, apart from the new image (potentially Yang's device) , nothing world shocking was revealed in this document.
In all honesty, I found it a bit underwhelming : a lot of hot air and very little beef.

So...Really? Is that supposed to impress the UK military ????

Somebody really has to assist Shawyer with marketing strategies, cause a first year marketing student would get an F for such a presentation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 08:19 AM
Btw, I found a pdf version of Shawyer's powerpoint presentation.(more convenient maybe?)
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Shrivenham-presentation-V.3.pdf

Note that the presentation was held on February 7th 2017.
So why the huge time delay?

And let's stay honest, apart from the new image (potentially Yang's device) , nothing world shocking was revealed in this document.
In all honesty, I found it a bit underwhelming : a lot of hot air and very little beef.

So...Really? Is that supposed to impress the UK military ????

Somebody really has to assist Shawyer with marketing strategies, cause a first year marketing student would get an F for such a presentation...

Mr. Shawyer is under strict NDA and it got even worse lately. It got worse with the information release since his start of the cooperation with the Gilo Industries.
I know that most of the interviews need approval of military first and they usualy scrap quite a lot of information he provides there. Yes, it is depressing, that we are not able to aquire more information.  :(

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 09:31 AM
Dear Phil (aka TheTraveller): you went to China for a long time to monitor your large TE013 spherical end EmDrive Mark 3 or quite approaching build, as well as the KISS thruster previously aimed for 3rd party independent tests.

You said a few days ago elsewhere that the KISS thruster is now cancelled:
Quote from: TheTraveller
KISS Thruster project is abandoned. Sorry to say but there is no such thing as a low cost and simple to build EmDrive. My bad mistake.

And you told incredible positive results with a high end spherical end build:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Achieved 5N/kW with 50g thrust using 100W rf. Non cryo and non superconducting.

But now you are again postponing your program, saying you will instead focus on TE011 cavities with very large and very curved big ends:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Believe TE011 mode is the way to go as it increases the number of end plate adsorb & emit events.
Quote from: TheTraveller
My work is now focused on TE011 cavities with big end plates as the modelling shows they can deliver higher Q and higher number of transits.

Have yet to build a TE011 spherical end plate cavity as building the highly curved small and big end plates to a optical tolerance of 1/10 wave accuracy is not an easy nor low cost task.

It is really time now to show us a picture of one of your EmDrive builds recently made in China when you were there, monitoring build process then conducting tests.

I fear nobody, including all of your supporters, will listen to you anymore if you don't publish a single little piece of evidence besides written claims. And this would be perfectly logic and normal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/19/2017 11:48 AM
A somewhat "dry" approach, but I agree, TT made a whole lot of claims in time, but he never supported them with documents or images, now, I don't think that showing some images of his prototypes (or the test rig) could violate whatever shady "trade secret" so, given the bold claims he made, I think it's time for him to show us some evidence, otherwise we may conclude that all his claims are just a balloon of fried air
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OttO on 06/19/2017 12:16 PM
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 01:19 PM
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development

Author is Peter Lauwer. He posted this on page 14 of this thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 01:34 PM
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 03:30 PM
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein, who in 1906 was promoted to Technical Examiner Second Class) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

At a time that was more difficult to get paper published, when he was a patent clerk and a young father, in 1905, Einstein wrote five articles and had them published (going through difficult peer review -his paper had to be communicated-) in the prestigious Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), including his paper of special relativity http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf  (which broke with the -at the time- practically sacred Newtonian ideas, valiantly claiming that the speed of light is constant).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/19/2017 03:40 PM
Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 03:55 PM
Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.
Yes, but it is only a 6% difference with copper as I wrote previously, and silver is expensive.  If one wants to do it you only need to silver plate the inner surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no useful purpose in silver plating the outside surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity, so when this is done, the silver coating and mirror finishing is done on the inner surfaces, not the exterior surfaces. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 03:56 PM
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.

About peer review, Max Planck said:
"To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions
than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them."


And the publication of the foundational paper describing the double helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 would have been jeopardised in the context of the classic review system as we know it, because of its speculative nature.*

I maintain that about the lambda-CDM model, all those anonymous referees who are also the same physicists who publish their papers among the same journals have de facto a conflict of interest when facing provoking new ideas that could potentially destroy the thousand of papers already published and on which their career is based upon. According to this, something is rotten in the state of modern science.

Do you know that in order to be able to publish one solid paper based on general relativity (no crackpot theory) but involving a model alternative to the lambda-CDM model, with no conceptual nor mathematical error, with a good correlation to observations, with predictions, you have to make about 50 attempts to various journals? Do you know that 99% of those attempts are refused with the terse sentence "Sorry, we don't publish speculative works" in less than three minutes after the mail has been submitted, meaning the work has not even been read? Why, in your opinion, Heidi Fearn had to resort to a paid open-access journal to manage to publish her Gravitational Absorber Theory about Mach effects in general relativity which – and you know this very well, as I even think you are the one who coined this new name for the non-steady-state Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity – has no conceptual error and implies many breakthroughs? (just one example among many others)


*Source: Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too (http://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 04:08 PM
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 04:23 PM
There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

The system is indeed so effective that it cuts down both ends of the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of works in cosmology: the crackpot noise on the left that wanted to surreptitiously infiltrate its broken concepts, and also any new innovative upcoming revolution on the right, much too quicker for our epoch. Just fit your career within the standard model at the average rate and everything will be alright :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 06:22 PM
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/19/2017 06:43 PM

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 06:52 PM

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.

It's funny that Feynman, who popularized that term, cargo cult science, built his reputation on processes that one cannot observe, of which there is only indirect evidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/19/2017 10:28 PM
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/19/2017 10:50 PM
Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/19/2017 11:05 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 12:01 AM
Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?

Maybe AIM Aerospace Inc. (http://aim-aerospace.com)?
But this is a firm specialized in designing and manufacturing composite substructures for aircraft wings and cabin interior furnitures, notably for Boeing's planes and military customers, as well as UK Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems.


EDIT: Identity of the firm given by TT in a following post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691969#msg1691969).

An answer to my previous message about showing us some pictures of your Chinese trip?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: masterharper1082 on 06/20/2017 12:13 AM
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/20/2017 12:53 AM
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

... and for the likes of myself who want to publish experimental philosophical notions in the hope of exposure and/or feedback, there is viXra.org who have allowed me to reach an audience of a thousand since 2014.

Their bar is lower and their tolerance of amateurish presentation allows us amateurs access to something as similar as it needs to be, to publication under peer review. jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 02:28 AM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/20/2017 04:24 AM
 ... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/20/2017 04:46 AM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

That post from Gilo on the Facebook made an edit and added link to this article:

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/gilo-expands-with-new-wiltshire-unit

This is very interesting:

"The subsidiary of Gilo Industries Group has taken further space at Chaldicott Barns as an expansion of the business after more investment to develop new technology."

Of course Gilo works on additional technologies, but they mentioned the propulsion with this update. It points to the SPR company.

Also article mentiones Kuang-Chi investment group again. There are also other investors as far as we know. Many of them with considerable assets and interest in space and propulsion technologies.

Mod: SPR site updated with the latest presentation we already know about http://emdrive.com/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 05:39 AM
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
What you just posted is the mathematical equivalent of gibberish. You can't just break up the parts of a derivative like it was a fraction. There are a few cases where you can correctly write down something similar such as when notating a variable substitution (such as for integration by parts) but even then it is just shorthand for other more rigorous steps. What you did gets even worse when you invert so that you are dividing by infinitesimals, which is basically division by 0.

Also, even ignoring the issues with your use of infinitesimals, the dB/E portion makes no sense, because a vector divided by a vector is simply not a defined operation. This gets to the main problem with the ideas you keep posting here: You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist, and a single dimension simply cannot contain the information to describe 3 others as well as itself. When you write it out mathematically like this, the problem becomes obvious as you get undefined operations like this to do the magic conversion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/20/2017 06:07 AM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/20/2017 07:07 AM
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,

Except for the statement of the delta, yes, I agree especially for design/builders including magnetics inside or outside the frustum.

To maintain a delta, the pulses have to become shorter and overlap from multiple sources. There are electronic ways to construct and extend an extended peaking wave that looks like a square wave over time. E fields are easy; B field management and applications require knowledgeable magnetics folks.

The B field should be treated independently at first with coupling to Maxwell equations for a fuller picture. One should consider using Dirac's equations which are balanced, and also check out Maxwells' equations with axions added.

Interesting possibilities and dangerous opportunities.

David M



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/20/2017 07:08 AM
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/20/2017 12:18 PM
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh

Good point. The Ultem I will be using is black anyhow, but I don't know exactly *how* black it is. The bad thing is, Ultem has a low thermal conductivity (.22 W/m). It's pretty much a decent insulator!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/20/2017 12:25 PM
Email received from Roger in regard to who AIM is on the attached slide.

Interesting that the American Institute of Mathematics has a detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND a solution to the high Q acceleration problem as does Prof Yang's NWPU.

==============

Hi Phil

AIM is the American Institute of Mathematics. It is funded by the National Science Foundation and is used by a number of US government agencies.

I had a meeting with John Fry at his request, on 19 Jan 2014 in the UK.

Best regards

Roger

==============
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 01:13 PM
https://aimath.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Mathematics

John Fry is the co-founder of Fry's Electronics, California.
And AIM is funded by NSF ;D
(no! not the website of this forum, but the National Science Foundation, a US government agency)

https://www.nsf.gov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 01:36 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 01:53 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/20/2017 02:21 PM
For example:  In the Notsosureofit example the thrust NT of the rest frame is reduced by the acceleration of the cavity by the factor (g(photon) - g(cavity))/g(photon).

[off the cuff statement - note the nonlinearity]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/20/2017 02:28 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 02:35 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force. For a low estimate of a 1 kg apparatus, that would be 0.002 to 0.1 m/s^2. This is at best a factor of 100 less acceleration than I was using, and with the factor of 1000 increase in Q you suggested, this is a net factor of 10 increase in the delta v 0.1 m/s is still not going to be very significant.

Shawyer has obviously not demonstrated anything near 100 gs acceleration, or he would have posted a picture of the hole in his wall, and we would be having a very different conversation. We can instead stick with my 1 g number which is still far above demonstrated accelerations, which are the only ones that matter experimentally. That would bump it up to 10 m/s. This would get you up to around 80 Hz shift, which might almost be enough to matter if you had a very good source (I'd have to check the expected bandwidth at that kind of Q) still, for this to come into effect, you would already be accelerating at a sustained 1 g for 1 second, and if there were limitations caused by they would just make it difficult to accelerate much faster, no reason you couldn't keep that rate up though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 03:07 PM
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/20/2017 03:31 PM
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 03:51 PM
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.
Yes, this is a science forum in English, so we are using the short scale. Million is never a problem and is always 106 in any scale. it is billion and trillion which have different meanings in the long scale, but nobody should use the long scale in English and especially in scientific discussions.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 04:11 PM
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

 :o Well then, I look forward to hearing more when you're ready to present it.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 04:14 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

And what about Fetta? I strongly suspect Shawyer, Fetta and others have much stronger results than you know about and know what's really going on. Are you considering the possibility that even if you don't accept Shawyer's theory, his equations may in fact work yet need to be put on a firmer footing or shown to be equivalent to better theories.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 04:15 PM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:10 PM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 06:04 PM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.

Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:48 PM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.

Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.

I took your post as a jumping off point about 1g ships to the community. I didn't misunderstand you, I'm just not responding to your cavity argument at this time. I referred to them elsewhere. But my post does respond indirectly to your last sentences of your post which agrees with and emphasizes your argument that it's a non issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/20/2017 09:01 PM
Can we take it then that you believe the Emdrive effect is real (however you explain it in your patent application) and can be used to power spacecraft? And flying cars :)?

...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/21/2017 04:20 AM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'

No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back.  In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly.  Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence.  A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Left Field on 06/21/2017 08:50 AM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'

No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back.  In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly.  Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence.  A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept.
That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/21/2017 03:28 PM
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

So basically you introduce a resonant EM field into an asymmetric frustum. Due to the asymmetry of the frustum, the resonant EM field is concentrated or focused in a predictable asymmetric pattern inside the frustum. Second the presence of the resonant EM field inside the frustum would result in an associated and again asymmetric manner, to match the asymmetry of the resonant field, electric currents and “EM/magnetic fields” in the frustum wall and endplates.

For simplicity assume that the frustum and manner that the resonant EM field is introduced into the frustum, result in the highest concentration/focus of the resonant EM field at or near the small end plate. In a manner similar to effects associated with Lenz’s law, the interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and end plates… and because the rate that the resonant EM field and the induced field in the frustum, update are not equivalent, would cause the frustum to attempt to slide toward the small end. The resonant EM field would move to the location within the frustum of best resonance at the speed of light, while the induced field in the frustum itself changes at the rate that current flows through the material the frustum is composed of…. The force would be very small and primarily based on the intensity of the resonant EM field and the construction of the frustum itself, to the extent that the materials and design improve or accentuate the “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and endplates.

It would seem at this time that the frustum design and materials play two important roles. First the design should focus the resonant EM field toward the small endplate. And second the eletrical conductive rate of the coating inside the frustum, when compared to the frequency of the resonant field may be important. Assuming the resonant field moves with movement of the frustum at the speed of light, the rate that the induced field in the frustum wall/endplates relative to the frequency of the resonant field may be important.., to maximize the interaction between the two and result in an annomolus force...

There has been speculation of building these drive systems with a wide range of frequencies, while the best frequency may be better defined by the conductive properties of the available coatings, if one is seeking a device that can provide a continuous thrust. That may not be as important if a pulsed system is the objective.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/21/2017 04:37 PM
... snip ...

 ;D

The Matrix's Nebuchadnezzar had an intriguing design with EM thrusters (even producing arcing when close to other objects). I always assumed those were ionic/plasma thrusters only working on an atmosphere, but now I wonder if they were of a now more familiar (for people on this thread, at least) kind...  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/21/2017 05:26 PM
...And what about Fetta?...

Fetta has come out with absolutely no news since:  http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/

SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

That is a very long 8 months with no news.  And that was just a clarification.  The last news from Fetta's Cannae is really now 9 months ago:

http://cannae.com/press-release-from-cannae/

AUGUST 17, 2016

PRESS RELEASE FROM CANNAE
Cannae Inc. is demonstrating its proprietary thruster technology on an upcoming satellite mission. Cannae’s technology requires no on-board propellant to generate thrust and will provide station-keeping for a cubesat flying below a 150 mile orbital altitude. The demonstration satellite will remain in this orbit for a minimum of six months.

Cannae formed Theseus Space Inc. to work with its commercial partners to execute the technology demonstration mission. LAI International of Tempe. AZ continues to provide manufacturing and project support. SpaceQuest Ltd. of Fairfax, VA is providing system integration, technical support and program management for the satellite mission.


(https://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4178826.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 06:24 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/21/2017 06:39 PM
I was wondering if a patent can be refuted on the grounds that the filer improperly characterized how his invention worked.  But then I remembered the famous case of Lee DeForest and Edwin Armstrong, back in the 1920's.   DeForest did not really understand how his vacuum tube worked, but anyway claimed a "previous invention" that conflicted with Armstrong's later invention of the Regenerative detection circuits.  It was a long drawn out court case, with multiple deep-pockets investors involved.  DeForest eventually won out, even though it was Armstrong who did all the theoretical work showing how DeForest's "invention" actually worked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/21/2017 07:06 PM
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared.
Presumably the Q^2  would be the factor of Q I used in my calculations, plus the one he would include in the equation for acceleration. All effects from the second factor of Q are accounted for in the acceleration term I used. In most practical applications, if you increased the force high enough to get much past 1-2 g of acceleration, you would want to either reduce the power or increase system mass (higher payload). While technically accurate, the scaling with Q^2 only matters for systems where you have no reason to limit the acceleration, otherwise it scales linearly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/21/2017 09:05 PM
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.

Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.

Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/21/2017 10:20 PM
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.

Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.

Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO.

At the level of mN/Kw it completely changes satellite design - no more reaction wheels, thrusters, magnetic torque rods, fuel, fuel tanks, fuel lines, valves, catalyst beds or heaters.  It's a complete revolution.
(I design and build satellites for a living).
At the level of N/Kw it opens up the entire solar system.
Flying cars are actually harder :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/21/2017 10:52 PM
agreed.... with a N/kW level, we can start exploring and colonizing the entire solar system in less then 100 years.
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

BUT but but... we're not there yet... we first gotta prove the damn thing works as some claim it does...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/22/2017 02:45 AM
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daleth_Effect)" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the Honda motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/22/2017 03:27 AM
Click left fields link to see previous quotes:

That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339

That started out entirely as a separate topic from the EM drive.  At the time I didn't know about the EM drive.  I had this idea I thought was original, from understanding delayed EM signals, which really is propellant-less propulsion in a sense but it turns out it's just a phased array.  However the patent I posted I realized was the same thing (little did I realize it was a little more) so my idea wasn't all that original.  I was excited about the idea and had found this  website, so thought I would try and share it. 

I was approached or found the EM drive thread later.  Some others wondered if it could be related,  I wondered myself but the cavity give no emission of radiation as would a phased array and a phased array is weaker than a laser in thrust so its not a likely candidate. 

Later I began to understand how the phased array actually fights against it self.  The delayed electric fields from charge separation are different from magnetic fields of charge in motion.  The time retarded forces from charge separation actually oppose time retarded forces from magnetic effects.  Some how a phased array still can project radiation in a single direction so one of the forces is weaker than the other.

Also, there is a strong correlation with work.  Positive work is done at the back of the phased array with magnetic forces while negative work is done toward the front of the phased array.  This almost corresponds to negative energy at the front and positive energy at the back (similar to a diametric drive) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program but doesn't use mass but rather work or energy.  Problem is the phased array fights against it self and actually does opposing work so its not efficient.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290

I would later realize in this video they are making the magnetic force work with the static electric force http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1342799#msg1342799
I designed this circuit here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1455292#msg1455292  I realized that was what they were doing in the video was the same as my circuit and was excited to realize this. 

I then would later realize a cavity in a transverse electric mode http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1460370#msg1460370 has no charge separation to fight against the magnetic effects.  I had an idea to either make an array that had the electric fields from the charge separation working with the magnetic effects or, eliminate (magnetism or charge separation altogether). The TE mode in the cavities eliminate charge separation. 

One problem is in a phased array you can control the current and make one wire do negative work.  However in a cavity it does what it would when encountering light so I would assume it normally does negative work (metal blocks the radiation).  I never quite put it out of the back of my mind that maybe however there could be some effect where the cavity was doing negative work at one end and positive work at the other while eliminating charge separation then maybe there would be some force greater than photon propulsion.  But wait a phased array in a cavity?  No radiation can escape!  However, even if we were to build a phased array where only magnetic effects are there and not charge separation how is it that there would suddenly be an increase in propulsive force when all we know about is radiation.  If its really possible then maybe there would be some other type of emission.  I have wondered if it were possible to generate some type of space time wave this way.  If some phased array could be made where charge separation works with the magnetic effects. 

I also worked on what I called a reverse magnetic phased array that I already linked here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290 I would use a dielectric between them that would slow the speed of light to very low velocity so as to allow the arrays to be as close together as possible.  There is another trick I haven't stated yet so as to further amplify forces between arrays also. 

WarpTech would later bring to my attention that radiation passing through the dielectric should create an opposing force.  While I admit this may be possible I have a suspicion that such an array may generate something else other than just light as it should provide a force greater than photon propulsion, because it should surpass a phased array, having magnetic forces with with charge separation. 

Would it work?  I have no guarantee, just a suspicion.   Does the EM drive work on such an effect?  I can't tell you that for sure either.  I don't know how the EM drive would do positive work one one side, as opposed to the other by just introducing radiation. 

The Doppler shifting of light, change in mass of light, is an idea I was toying with on the side.  I might be able to give an answer on how much change in frequency would occur given that light changed in mass by some factor on one side as opposed to the other.  The whole premise that light changed in mass was based on the apparent change in wavelength in radiation in the cavity along the z axis.  With constant frequency then if the mass changes the speed should change almost as if the index of space is changing which would effect massive objects.  Some microwave engineers seemed to think the index appeared to change also.  I remain uncertain this is actually happening. 

I am looking into how much frequency change would actually happen via a photon accelerating the cavity via 2nd order Doppler shift after many reflections.  I have a paper I derive this 2nd order Doppler shift in but it has a typo in equation 13 which should read 4*m_2*f*h was (4*f*h).  I am not confident the change in frequency will be significant.  I do believe it occurs however.  I suspect this is how energy is transferred from photons to a mirror in recycled photon thrusters or photonic laser thrusters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

I also wonder if a photon accelerating a single electron would be more effective at transferring energy given the much smaller mass of the electron. 

I still have no real idea how or why the mass of a photon would change in such a manner inside an EM drive or if it would even really be an effective form of propulsion if possible.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dustin_Macdermott  I'll update that paper to fix that typo I caught soon. 

The phased array is really a separate idea from light changing in mass. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/22/2017 05:17 AM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

I tried with the 2nd order doppler effect for equations:

(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?df=f\left(&space;\frac{2\,v_2}{c&plus;v_2}&plus;\frac{2\,c^3&space;\frac{f\,h}{c^2}}{m_2&space;{{\left(&space;c&plus;v_2\right)&space;}^{3}}}-\frac{4\,c^5&space;\frac{f^{2}\,h^{2}}{c^4}}{m_2^{2}\left(c&plus;v_2\right)^{5}}&plus;...\right))

Assuming the mass of the photon at one end is twice at the other in a cavity

if v_2 > 0 then the regular Doppler shift appears to dwarf the other terms if m_2 very large like 1kg. 
c = 3E8 = speed of light m/s
V = 1 = some starting velocity in m/s or use v_2 = 0 to eliminate the normal Doppler effect
f = 2.45E9 = microwave frequency
h = 6.626E-34 = planks constant
m_2 = 9E-31 kg; ~ mass of electron
n = 1000000; = number of reflections, I just multiply it all by n (not shown)

if m_2 is very small like the mass of an electron and you expect 10k reflections then things get interesting.  The change in frequency could almost be 1khz  which brings up a question.  At what point do we assume the collision is with the cavity rather than the electron?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/22/2017 09:24 AM
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/22/2017 02:10 PM
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

I tried with the 2nd order doppler effect for equations:

(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?df=f\left(&space;\frac{2\,v_2}{c&plus;v_2}&plus;\frac{2\,c^3&space;\frac{f\,h}{c^2}}{m_2&space;{{\left(&space;c&plus;v_2\right)&space;}^{3}}}-\frac{4\,c^5&space;\frac{f^{2}\,h^{2}}{c^4}}{m_2^{2}\left(c&plus;v_2\right)^{5}}&plus;...\right))

Assuming the mass of the photon at one end is twice at the other in a cavity

if v_2 > 0 then the regular Doppler shift appears to dwarf the other terms if m_2 very large like 1kg. 
c = 3E8 = speed of light m/s
V = 1 = some starting velocity in m/s or use v_2 = 0 to eliminate the normal Doppler effect
f = 2.45E9 = microwave frequency
h = 6.626E-34 = planks constant
m_2 = 9E-31 kg; ~ mass of electron
n = 1000000; = number of reflections, I just multiply it all by n (not shown)

if m_2 is very small like the mass of an electron and you expect 10k reflections then things get interesting.  The change in frequency could almost be 1khz  which brings up a question.  At what point do we assume the collision is with the cavity rather than the electron?
Things are interesting but not addressable. 10k reflections at 1ns travel time (typical ballpark frustum size in the Y direction) for the photon equates to a whooping 10 microseconds. I can bake a cake in that amount time  :o or seriously control the shifting frequency with a variety of techniques.

On another item. I loved your post, what a keen perception you have.  8) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1692527#msg1692527

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/22/2017 03:55 PM
FYI:

General properties of entropy
Alfred Wehrl
Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 221 (1978) - Published 1 April 1978
It is rather paradoxical that, although entropy is one of the most important quantities in physics, its main properties are rarely listed in the usual textbooks on statistical mechanics. In this paper we try to fill this gap by discussing these properties, as, for instance, invariance, additivity, concavity, subadditivity, strong subadditivity, continuity, etc., in detail, with reference to their implications in statistical mechanics. In addition, we consider related concepts such as relative entropy, skew entropy, dynamical entropy, etc. Taking into account that statistical mechanics deals with large, essentially infinite systems, we finally will get a glimpse of systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/22/2017 05:40 PM
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the HONDA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-t-solomon/hondas-gravity-modification-research_b_7531260.html) motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)


" ... futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.
somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it,
no matter how much you try to keep the details secret. "
   
   
     
I wish I had this problem!  :) 
 
So far, nobody wants to steal my physics breakthrough space drive technology.
It has been futile ....   :'( 
You missed the part about people having to know that it is possible. When I look at you website I see neither demonstrations that it works, nor any compelling reason to think it should work. As best as I can tell your idea is basically that you don't understand gyroscopes, so they must be magic antigravity devices. This is a surprisingly common train of logic on the internet despite being completely wrong. Physicists and engineers (including me) generally do understand gyroscopes, and recognize they have nothing to do with antigravity.

If you want I could try to explain gyroscopes to you, but this is probably not the right place. (PM or maybe the Q&A section, under the rational that gyroscopes are important for spacecraft control)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/22/2017 06:05 PM
Click left fields link to see previous quotes:

That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339

...

WarpTech would later bring to my attention that radiation passing through the dielectric should create an opposing force.  While I admit this may be possible I have a suspicion that such an array may generate something else other than just light as it should provide a force greater than photon propulsion, because it should surpass a phased array, having magnetic forces with with charge separation. 

Would it work?  I have no guarantee, just a suspicion.   Does the EM drive work on such an effect?  I can't tell you that for sure either.  I don't know how the EM drive would do positive work one one side, as opposed to the other by just introducing radiation. 


To be clear. Even if the momentum of photons inside the dielectric were much greater than it is in vacuum. When those photons exit the back-end of the device, they will return to their free-space momentum value. Any excess momentum must be transferred to the dielectric, and that "push" is in the wrong direction -- toward the rear.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: birchoff on 06/22/2017 06:14 PM
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daleth_Effect)" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the Honda motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)

that depends on how you go about monetizing the discovery. For example, if you immediately patented and licensed the technology to current players. that does two things first it disincentivizes the licensee from spending the money on reverse engineering. While at the same time increasing the community dependent on reverse engineered knockoffs from being allowed into the marketplace.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/22/2017 07:58 PM
It seems the mod moms have nuked a block of posts, including my update and summary. I don't have time right now to rewrite it all but I will tonight or tomorrow morning.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/22/2017 08:36 PM
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/22/2017 09:18 PM
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Anyone have access to the full paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/22/2017 09:31 PM
" As a system becomes more asymmetric in its transport properties, the degree to which the limit can be surpassed becomes greater. "

Note the inclusion of asymmetric transport properties.  These could be a property of the wall materials.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/22/2017 09:35 PM
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/23/2017 01:48 AM
" As a system becomes more asymmetric in its transport properties, the degree to which the limit can be surpassed becomes greater. "

Note the inclusion of asymmetric transport properties.  These could be a property of the wall materials.

Also the information (entropy) of things in nature (black holes, the universe) can be shown to be on the exterior surface as a hologram of everything inside the volume.  The maximum possible entropy depends on the boundary area instead of the volume.   From what we learned from information theory, the information content in the volume of the system cannot exceed that of the description on the boundary.  So thinking about information theory (entropy) the walls are most important:  and this works for the EM Drive: all the losses are on the copper surface
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/23/2017 02:04 AM
I prefer "description of the boundary".    And, yes the electrical activity of the wall is "holographic" to the fields in the volume.  I might add that the boundary goes shape independent as the number of states goes to infinity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/23/2017 02:06 AM

(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/23/2017 02:25 AM
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.


(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
We are in complete agreement here. I did not used any modifiers like Euclidean or orthogonal, or even linear. The dimensions in general are curved, non-orthogonal, and mixed in with the fourth (temporal) dimension. All of the dimensions exist, 3 spatial and 1 temporal, and you need all of them to properly describe the motions of objects (which is the essence of physics in a way). There is no sensible way to boil 4 dimensions down to just 1.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/23/2017 10:28 AM
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Attached is a snippet from the paper. All credit where it is due.

Some discussion on the paper...

So wave packets may occasionally propagate in one direction and simply gain amplitude when hitting a boundary with magnetic fields blocking back-propagation. The entire information of the wave is conserved at the boundary. The authors used a combination of a Si dielectric, InSb semiconductor and Ag conductor. This heterostructure had a "static"* magnetic field applied in the -y direction. This would be akin to increasing the electron pressure on the outermost boundary. In fact it is the E field (see orthogonality in diagram) which provides the directional force to prevent the wave packet from escaping its resonant oscillation at the point of incidence. The wave becomes sandwiched between two e fields (electron seas/phonon soup) until it decays. Supposing the power to the repulsive B field is turned off, then with back scattering and back propagation it can of course assume a longer closed path again.

Here's yet another analogy then of how I currently view the cavity in light of this renewed confirmation of the discrete and unidirectional nature of photonic propagation given the repulsive (TE directional aligned, remember B does not repel E but instead overlaps) E field. The inside of the cavity is like a plasma onion. Each electron sheet has photons bouncing (until absorption, dissipative losses or propagation (tunneling/however) through the wall) along paths not too dissimilar from that of a vacuum filled cavity. As each electron is excited, it in turn can emit a photon or collide to continue the propagation of the energy.

At certain points, however, due to magnetohydrodynamic shearing and torque from the time evolution of the resonant fields, and of course some splatter and chaos, specific areas will experience magnetic reconnection and transfer energy directionally. Before the reconnection occurs, individual photons, carrying information as a wave packet, will resonate between layers. This buffer of sorts will release a cascade of energy down to the weaker e field/onion layer upon reconnection and create more asymmetry further ensuring energy propagation towards the walls. The more excited the medium gets the stronger the E field (OBVIOUSLY) in each of the modal peaks and the greater the difference and therefore the statistical likelihood of prevention of back propagation between layers. Wave packets do not ignore the internal electrons, and internal electrons do not ignore the wave packets. Each area of high energy density will act just like any other ExB field in relation to light. This paper just confirms that fields can concentrate an arbitrary wave packet into a dense volume of space and therefore increases the entire system's capacity for energy storage. Instead of Q being a limitation based on the entire wave path, we understand that Q is determined by any number of arbitrary temporary resonances the packet enters during its lifetime (before leaving the system). When will we accept that the same physical laws governing plasmonic propagation in metals also govern plasmonic propagation in air just on a different time and energy magnitude?   

Two topics which I brushed on earlier come to mind: plasmonics in zero dimensional metals/nanowires and (de)coherency of the system. Upon trapping the light it is actually made temporarily coherent as the path is closed. In theory, decohering a large amount of the photons stuck between sheets/wall (the wall is just a denser sheet) by no longer introducing new waves into the cavity, will lead to a reactionary force in the exact opposite direction of the relaxation events and the pressure gradient because the gradient is time dependent and forms a sequence of discrete quanta which repel weaker (younger) fields. If the thrust is caused from wall to wall reactions and largely ignores internal atmosphere, this reactionary force should be close to or equal to the instantaneous forward force. If the thrust is caused by electron/ionic pressures, then this reactionary force should be less than the forward force due to vortices, eddies, evanescence and more. The only issue is whether it decoheres instantaneously or over time and whether it has a tangible effect on system acceleration: a question of how important the gain medium actually is. If the gain medium is a cold plasma then we can begin to consider the different layers as discrete. Plasmonics in nanowires are so interesting because they also show asymmetry and pseudo-momentum naturally. Waves which resonate along such a structure naturally shift the mass and charge to one end of the structure, these resonances and oscillations seem eerily similar to field vectors and electrical currents inside a cavity.               

I leave you with a quote for some of the other theorists from the paper:
Quote
The small increase in the total optical losses that we observed in our simulations for this latter case is
because the slope of the band (i.e., the pulse’s group velocity) reduces with increasing B0, leading to higher overall optical losses(27**)


*As proven before, true static fields do not exist! Minor oscillations are unavoidable, anything else is a mathematical flight of fancy. 

** 27. R. W. Boyd, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, A38–A44 (2011)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 05:26 PM
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.

You are not going to be allowed to fly over houses or neighborhoods and FAA rules will apply. Flying cars will have to be flown from airports of some kind, not just anywhere to anywhere. Airspace and it's uses will be tightly controlled.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/23/2017 05:30 PM
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.

When cavity photons are absorbed by the electrons on surface metallic atoms, they are also reemitted back into the cavity The process is called radiation pressure. Any lost energy and/or momentum transfer results in the reemittted photon being red shifted to reflects it's lower level of energy.

A photon can not lose energy and have the same wavelength or frequency. As it loses energy, it red shifts. Photon wavelength = hc / photon energy.

Once a cavity is filled, the per cycle J input from the Rf source equals the per cycle photon J loss due to all loss sources. When the Rf input into the cavity is stopped, the stored photon energy decays over 5 x TC and the photon wavelengths increase.

The predominant photon energy loss in a cavity is from the photon's H fields inducing eddy current flow into the metallic walls and end plates which results in ohmic heating. The energy to generate the heating is sourced from the photon's energy. Photon absord and emit events are not required to generate skin depth eddy currents and related heating.

Don't believe shinning a blue light on a black piece of paper has anything to do with the above, especially as there is no eddy current heating involved. However if the event occurred in space and the black paper gained momentum and energy from the blue light, the reemitted light would be very slighlty red shifted to reflect the lost momentum and energy.

Radiation pressure = (2 * E) / c

The 2 represents 2 momentum and energy transfer, from photon to mass, events. 1st for the absord event and 2nd for the emit event.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 05:44 PM
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Attached is a snippet from the paper. All credit where it is due.

Some discussion on the paper...

So wave packets may occasionally propagate in one direction and simply gain amplitude when hitting a boundary with magnetic fields blocking back-propagation....

Is this implying what I think it is, that EMDrive type cavities might be designed to resonate  in a very wide frequency range and thus not have to chase the narrow band for resonance?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/23/2017 06:40 PM

Is this implying what I think it is, that EMDrive type cavities might be designed to resonate  in a very wide frequency range and thus not have to chase the narrow band for resonance?

In the remote case this proves to work as Roger Shawyer says, yes, it would be heavily regulated.

As it should, given the potential uses as a weapon of any vehicle with enough kinetic energy.

But in this case all evidence seems to point towards more modest thrusts in the milli Newton range, if anything at all.

That level of thrust, if confirmed, would be mostly of use for space applications, with no impact for Earth based transportation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/23/2017 07:43 PM
These experiments were done at atmospheric pressure and should be done in vacuum. My understanding is that others who have done it in vacuum have not seen the effect.

As for me too, the BB effect was a case closed since the 1990s. But I am happy we can discuss here some peculiar points.

Contrary to the belief, experiments have also been done in a vacuum, but maybe it was not high enough (10-6 torr) and a plasma was still flowing between electrodes? Another thing: if the Biefeld-Brown effect is just electrohydrodynamic in nature (ionic wind), can someone explain why a measurable force is still detected when those asymmetric capacitors are put inside a closed metallic box immersed in insulating oil?

This kind of test had been conducted by Townsend Brown himself, as well as Takaaki Musha on behalf of Honda Motor Co. who detected up to 2 grams of change on the balance with 8kVAC and 18KVDC currents (Musha's paper"Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect from the standpoint of ZPF field" published in JBIS in 2008 is attached below as long as a schematic diagram of his experiment).

Info seen after this post of Quantum Gravity (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1692673#msg1692673) in the other topic.

Were there major flaws in Brown and Musha's experiments? EMI/HV interference with the setup? Ionic wind in the air around the whole setup?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/23/2017 10:16 PM
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.

When cavity photons are absorbed by the electrons on surface metallic atoms, they are also reemitted back into the cavity The process is called radiation pressure. Any lost energy and/or momentum transfer results in the reemittted photon being red shifted to reflects it's lower level of energy.

A photon can not lose energy and have the same wavelength or frequency. As it loses energy, it red shifts. Photon wavelength = hc / photon energy.

Once a cavity is filled, the per cycle J input from the Rf source equals the per cycle photon J loss due to all loss sources. When the Rf input into the cavity is stopped, the stored photon energy decays over 5 x TC and the photon wavelengths increase.

The predominant photon energy loss in a cavity is from the photon's H fields inducing eddy current flow into the metallic walls and end plates which results in ohmic heating. The energy to generate the heating is sourced from the photon's energy. Photon absord and emit events are not required to generate skin depth eddy currents and related heating.

Don't believe shinning a blue light on a black piece of paper has anything to do with the above, especially as there is no eddy current heating involved. However if the event occurred in space and the black paper gained momentum and energy from the blue light, the reemitted light would be very slighlty red shifted to reflect the lost momentum and energy.

Radiation pressure = (2 * E) / c

The 2 represents 2 momentum and energy transfer, from photon to mass, events. 1st for the absord event and 2nd for the emit event.
Radiation pressure as you described is for the photons that are reflected not absorbed. The energy losses are almost entirely from absorbed photons (which apply half the radiation pressure.). The absorbed photons are not re-emitted. Reflected photons do not change frequency (and therefore energy) unless there is a difference in velocity between the source and what it is reflected from. There is a tiny effect from the radiation pressure if it is causing acceleration as well. If you go look up some of my earliest posts on this site you would see I calculated it and the effect is negligible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:21 AM

(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
We are in complete agreement here. I did not used any modifiers like Euclidean or orthogonal, or even linear. The dimensions in general are curved, non-orthogonal, and mixed in with the fourth (temporal) dimension. All of the dimensions exist, 3 spatial and 1 temporal, and you need all of them to properly describe the motions of objects (which is the essence of physics in a way). There is no sensible way to boil 4 dimensions down to just 1.
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:27 AM
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.

You are not going to be allowed to fly over houses or neighborhoods and FAA rules will apply. Flying cars will have to be flown from airports of some kind, not just anywhere to anywhere. Airspace and it's uses will be tightly controlled.
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:39 AM
(...)
Radiation pressure as you described is for the photons that are reflected not absorbed. The energy losses are almost entirely from absorbed photons (which apply half the radiation pressure.). The absorbed photons are not re-emitted. Reflected photons do not change frequency (and therefore energy) unless there is a difference in velocity between the source and what it is reflected from. There is a tiny effect from the radiation pressure if it is causing acceleration as well. If you go look up some of my earliest posts on this site you would see I calculated it and the effect is negligible.
meberbs,
is it not true that absorption of radiation engenders a current in the reflector, even when that radiation is re-emitted. A more extensive reflecting surface might then contain both the energy of that radiation and the inertia imparted by its radiation pressure, for longer than a less extensive reflecting surface might do.
       Is this not a potential explanation for emdrive thrust?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: eh90 on 06/24/2017 07:55 AM
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/24/2017 07:31 PM
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.

You certainly can design spacecraft to harness those fields directly but that's another topic altogether.

http://spacenews.com/experiment-designed-harness-magnetic-field-propulsion/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/24/2017 08:23 PM
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.

You certainly can design spacecraft to harness those fields directly but that's another topic altogether.

http://spacenews.com/experiment-designed-harness-magnetic-field-propulsion/

Dear eh90, we don't currently understand how the EmDrive works, and we don't know if it works at all (the tiny thrusts measured with experiments so far could be systematic experimental errors). If it works, we don't know if the emDrive depends on such things as Earth's magnetic field, or Earth's gravitational potential in its surroundings, so we don't know if it could also work in deep space where there are no such fields. Hence this kind of question, although interesting, is really premature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/24/2017 09:42 PM
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.

All current aircraft are restricted to being 1,000 feet from any inhabited structure or large crowd of people, or 500 feet from open ground.  And if an airplane or helicopter loses power, it descends relatively slowly and under full control.  A flying car using a mechanism like EM (assuming you could get that much lift from it) becomes a brick if the power fails.   And automatic parachutes (some small aircraft actually have these) need altitude to work and are not very controllable.  Watch out for those high tension lines...  And then if the wind is blowing... 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/25/2017 01:18 AM
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.

All current aircraft are restricted to being 1,000 feet from any inhabited structure or large crowd of people, or 500 feet from open ground.  And if an airplane or helicopter loses power, it descends relatively slowly and under full control.  A flying car using a mechanism like EM (assuming you could get that much lift from it) becomes a brick if the power fails.   And automatic parachutes (some small aircraft actually have these) need altitude to work and are not very controllable.  Watch out for those high tension lines...  And then if the wind is blowing...
Thanks ThereIWas3,
all this depends upon what specific thrust can be achieved. If propulsion is a small fraction of MTOW then triple redundancy could be employed. Who was it said "... predicting the future is like driving a car backwards in a heavy fog ..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/25/2017 03:38 AM
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2017 01:45 PM
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

This is an excellent write-up of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop and the source material for my reply. I was honored to attend.

Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop
19 —22 September 2016
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
edited by
H. Fearn L. L. Williams

Relevant reading materials to consider first.

Intro to MEP
Introduction to “ Mach Effect Propulsion” in Appendix D – J.J.A. Rodal Page 127

Dr. Rodal's excellent paper on the MEGA Mach Effect starts at page 282
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf
(warning... a PDF but worth it to read)

Coupling the EMDrive to Mach Effects with a paper (his presentation via Skype)
Theory of the EM-drive Based on Mach-Lorentz Theory – J.-P. Montillet Page 111

---------------

There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: Sorry I haven't re-written up the current work like I said, I had other pressing issues arise. I'll try to get it out in a post again.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/25/2017 09:01 PM
Quote
There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

A few weeks back - an eternity in these threads - I posted a suggestion:

The Mach Effect relies on the gravitational influences of 'distant bodies' in order to function.

However, there is one nearby astronomical body whose gravitation causes major effects on earth: the moon.  Lunar tides, in places, alter ocean levels at the coastlines by tens of feet.  That seems like a pretty potent source.

Perhaps some of the larger anomalous 'thrusts' are linked to the lunar cycle, and the devices lunar orientation.  Or to put it another way:

what would the local high (or low) tide have been at Shell's location during the times of her tests? 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/25/2017 09:15 PM
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/25/2017 09:21 PM
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2017 09:23 PM
Quote
There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

A few weeks back - an eternity in these threads - I posted a suggestion:

The Mach Effect relies on the gravitational influences of 'distant bodies' in order to function.

However, there is one nearby astronomical body whose gravitation causes major effects on earth: the moon.  Lunar tides, in places, alter ocean levels at the coastlines by tens of feet.  That seems like a pretty potent source.

Perhaps some of the larger anomalous 'thrusts' are linked to the lunar cycle, and the devices lunar orientation.  Or to put it another way:

what would the local high (or low) tide have been at Shell's location during the times of her tests?
Interesting thought although.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Mach_effect
Quote
In a fully Machian general relativity theory like the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, inertia is a physical gravitational interaction of matter with the rest of the mass-energy in the universe, through an action at a distance instantaneous radiative reaction field. In the theory, a mass changing effect suitable for propulsion emerges from the general equation of motion.[91]

In non-scientific terms it means the whole enchilada... i.e. everything in the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%E2%80%93Narlikar_theory_of_gravity

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/25/2017 10:27 PM
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.

I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.

Meberbs you are 100% correct that you can do all the necessary math for Einstein's Relativity without using complex numbers.  Actually, for General Relativity you better use real numbers for the time coordinate:

This representation is (justifiably in my opinion) called abominable by Kip Thorne when it is used for General Relativity, who calls textbooks that try to do General Relativity using it as abominable, because while one can get away with  xo= i c t  in (perfectly flat) Minkowski spacetime (in other words, in Special Relativity), one cannot readily solve General Relativity problems using this imaginary time coordinate xo= i c t representation.  Hence in General Relativity physicists (and all advanced textbooks) use just xo= t, and the price one pays for this is to have to agree on a consistent signature for the metric of spacetime , for example spacelike [-,+,+,+] (mostly pluses) (used by Wikipedia, and the textbooks of Wald, and also Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) or timelike [+,-,-,-] (mostly minuses) (used by Leonard Susskind, Witten, and by Landau and Lifshitz).   The front inside cover of Misner Thorne and Wheeler lists conventions for metric signature, for the Riemann Tensor, for the Einstein Tensor, and for the use of Greek and Latin indices and lists 34 texts and what conventions they use. And then spells out on the facing side where the signs go.

So going back to Hawking's use of "imaginary time," it was a concept used for some versions of Quantum Gravity, Hawking, at the time (30 years ago ), believed that a quantum gravity theory could be successfully developed in this way.  Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation in the complex plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation ).  He thought that it was possible to avoid singularities in this Wick rotated space.   His views (popularized in a "Brief History of Time") are technically summarized in J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, "Wave function of the Universe" Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960–2975. [
 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 ] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state . 

It is by now (2017) an old approach that does not work well in general because of many difficulties.  I may be wrong but I wonder whether even Hawking is still pursuing this approach to Quantum Gravity.

If somebody disagrees, please specify a mathematical solution to General Relativity using imaginary time, that cannot be done even easier with real numbers for the time coordinate as used by Wald, Misner-Thorpe-Wheeler, Witten, or Landau-Lifshitz.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/25/2017 11:29 PM
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
I have to wonder, if as a last test, before transitioning to 30W whether it would be worthwhile to try TE011 on your rig to see if there is improved thrust as Phil is claiming.  If you could get TE011 going reasonably it would be a great A/B test on a well characterized test rig. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/26/2017 12:08 AM
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
I have to wonder, if as a last test, before transitioning to 30W whether it would be worthwhile to try TE011 on your rig to see if there is improved thrust as Phil is claiming.  If you could get TE011 going reasonably it would be a great A/B test on a well characterized test rig.

TE011 is quite a bit lower in frequency than TE013. While my signal generator is capable of generating those frequencies, the 2.4 Ghz amplifiers are not. I would need another main amplifier to test TE011 with the current cavity.

However, the new 3D printer will allow me to fabricate a cavity specifically designed for TE011 at 2.45Ghz with the highly curved end plates seen recently.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/26/2017 03:00 AM
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.

I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.

Meberbs you are 100% correct that you can do all the necessary math for Einstein's Relativity without using complex numbers.  Actually, for General Relativity you better use real numbers for the time coordinate:

This representation is (justifiably in my opinion) called abominable by Kip Thorne when it is used for General Relativity, who calls textbooks that try to do General Relativity using it as abominable, because while one can get away with  xo= i c t  in (perfectly flat) Minkowski spacetime (in other words, in Special Relativity), one cannot readily solve General Relativity problems using this imaginary time coordinate xo= i c t representation.  Hence in General Relativity physicists (and all advanced textbooks) use just xo= t, and the price one pays for this is to have to agree on a consistent signature for the metric of spacetime , for example spacelike [-,+,+,+] (mostly pluses) (used by Wikipedia, and the textbooks of Wald, and also Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) or timelike [+,-,-,-] (mostly minuses) (used by Leonard Susskind, Witten, and by Landau and Lifshitz).   The front inside cover of Misner Thorne and Wheeler lists conventions for metric signature, for the Riemann Tensor, for the Einstein Tensor, and for the use of Greek and Latin indices and lists 34 texts and what conventions they use. And then spells out on the facing side where the signs go.

So going back to Hawking's use of "imaginary time," it was a concept used for some versions of Quantum Gravity, Hawking, at the time (30 years ago ), believed that a quantum gravity theory could be successfully developed in this way.  Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation in the complex plane.  He thought that it was possible to avoid singularities in this Wick rotated space.   His views (popularized in a "Brief History of Time") are technically summarized in J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, "Wave function of the Universe" Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960–2975. [
 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 ] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state . 

It is by now (2017) an old approach that does not work well in general because of many difficulties.  I may be wrong but I wonder whether even Hawking is still pursuing this approach to Quantum Gravity.

If somebody disagrees, please specify a mathematical solution to General Relativity using imaginary time, that cannot be done even easier with real numbers for the time coordinate as used by Wald, Misner-Thorpe-Wheeler, Witten, or Landau-Lifshitz.

Thankyou meberbs, Shell and Dr Rodal,
       while out of my depth with the math of General Relativity it is clear to me that a functioning emdrive indicates interaction with the wider universe, all of it that is old enough to be within the range, ict. What I propose is that all interaction is electromagnetic and that it occurs across separations that only exist from point perspectives. A covariant perspective, as I understand it, requires coincidence of locations in spacetime which are remote from one another from the point perspective.
       The solution I visualize is; gravity and inertia consequent upon the sum of interaction with everything else by charge interactions mediated by time dilation; electromagnetic action being the consequence of the sum of individual interactions of pairs of charges also mediated by time dilation but limited to those in resonance with uninterrupted line of sight.
       No mathematical system yet resolves complex time, charge, mass, distance and direction, as the useful descriptors of physical force and energetic interaction. All available mathematical systems employ spatial dimensions which loose their orthogonality and become oppressively complicated with proximity to time dilation. My suggestion is that a system incorporating complex time may be capable of explaining the physical forces without the paradox which is glaringly obvious to me whenever I try to understand QM or GR.
       I am convinced that a seamless explanation for physical interaction is possible and that the emdrive can point us in the direction required to  find it. Surely it will be Machian. How can it not incorporate either complex time or some other resolution for remote action between charges? Thank you all for your patience with my struggles to understand this.

Q: is the reference https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 available without a paywall anywhere?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/26/2017 07:37 AM
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Here is the link and the attachment:

https://goo.gl/ixUF72
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Asteroza on 06/26/2017 07:40 AM
Probably posted elsewhere, but a heads up on high-Q related paper, apparently publishing something old school radar guys from the 50's knew but didn't talk/publish much about...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

"Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering"

Some satcomms guys think this may be big, as well as fiber optic telecomms guys...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/26/2017 12:09 PM
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/26/2017 12:56 PM
...
Q: is the reference https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 available without a paywall anywhere?
Although I cannot post the free version of Hawking's paper because it is in a Russian site (*), this article by Prof. Baez (**) is simpler, freely available, to explain what the concept of imaginary time and a Wick rotation are, and since you are still interested in Hawking's use of imaginary time (Wick rotation) 30 years ago, you may be interested in this:

A Spring in Imaginary Time

Homework:  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring.pdf

2 solutions posted:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring_garett.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring_alex.pdf

Quote
QUESTION: What does Newton’s law F = ma become if we formally replace normal time t by imaginary time s = it?

ANSWER: In short, working in imaginary time replaces F = ma by F = −ma

Also see this discussion "Thermodynamics and Wick Rotation", Posted by John Baez:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/08/thermodynamics_and_wick_rotati.html

---------------------------

(*) Yes, Hawking's paper is available free of charge in the Internet, I originally posted a free link to the paper, but then I realized that it is a Russian university, (the highly respected SKOBELTSYN INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS
LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY), and I recalled the mods not liking us to post Russian links...so I changed it to the one behind the paywall

(**) This is the same Prof. Baez that posted blogs that the Shawyer's EM Drive is nonsense

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/10/new_scientist_reacts.html

https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/26/2017 02:28 PM


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/26/2017 03:34 PM
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Quote
At EPFL, researchers challenge a fundamental law and discover that more electromagnetic energy can be stored in wave-guiding systems than previously thought. The discovery has implications in telecommunications. Working around the fundamental law, they conceived resonant and wave-guiding systems capable of storing energy over a prolonged period while keeping a broad bandwidth. Their trick was to create asymmetric resonant or wave-guiding systems using magnetic fields.

The study, which has just been published in Science, was led by Kosmas Tsakmakidis, first at the University of Ottawa and then at EPFL's Bionanophotonic Systems Laboratory run by Hatice Altug, where the researcher is now doing post-doctoral research.
This breakthrough could have a major impact on many fields in engineering and physics. The number of potential applications is close to infinite, with telecommunications, optical detection systems and broadband energy harvesting representing just a few examples. Resonant and wave-guiding systems are present in the vast majority of optical and electronic systems. Their role is to temporarily store energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and then release them. For more than 100 hundred years, these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental: the length of time a wave could be stored was inversely proportional to its bandwidth. This relationship was interpreted to mean that it was impossible to store large amounts of data in resonant or wave-guiding systems over a long period of time because increasing the bandwidth meant decreasing the storage time and quality of storage.
This law was first formulated by K. S. Johnson in 1914, at Western Electric Company (the forerunner of Bell Telephone Laboratories). He introduced the concept of the Q factor, according to which a resonator can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time. Increasing the storage time meant decreasing the bandwidth, and vice versa. A small bandwidth means a limited range of frequencies (or 'colors') and therefore a limited amount of data.
Until now, this concept had never been challenged. Physicists and engineers had always built resonant systems—like those to produce lasers, make electronic circuits and conduct medical diagnoses—with this constraint in mind.
But that limitation is now a thing of the past. The researchers came up with a hybrid resonant / wave-guiding system made of a magneto-optic material that, when a magnetic field is applied, is able to stop the wave and store it for a prolonged period, thereby accumulating large amounts of energy. Then when the magnetic field is switched off, the trapped pulse is released. With such asymmetric and non-reciprocal systems, it was possible to store a wave for a very long period of time while also maintaining a large bandwidth. The conventional time-bandwidth limit was even beaten by a factor of 1,000. The scientists further showed that, theoretically, there is no upper ceiling to this limit at all in these asymmetric (non-reciprocal) systems.
"It was a moment of revelation when we discovered that these new structures did not feature any time-bandwidth restriction at all. These systems are unlike what we have all been accustomed to for decades, and possibly hundreds of years", says Tsakmakidis, the study's lead author. "Their superior wave-storage capacity performance could really be an enabler for a range of exciting applications in diverse contemporary and more traditional fields of research." Hatice Altug adds..

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/26/2017 05:42 PM


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.

Why don't we wait for real information instead of rumors. I distrust this type of information.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/26/2017 06:28 PM
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Quote
At EPFL, researchers challenge a fundamental law and discover that more electromagnetic energy can be stored in wave-guiding systems than previously thought. The discovery has implications in telecommunications. Working around the fundamental law, they conceived resonant and wave-guiding systems capable of storing energy over a prolonged period while keeping a broad bandwidth. Their trick was to create asymmetric resonant or wave-guiding systems using magnetic fields.

The study, which has just been published in Science, was led by Kosmas Tsakmakidis, first at the University of Ottawa and then at EPFL's Bionanophotonic Systems Laboratory run by Hatice Altug, where the researcher is now doing post-doctoral research.
This breakthrough could have a major impact on many fields in engineering and physics. The number of potential applications is close to infinite, with telecommunications, optical detection systems and broadband energy harvesting representing just a few examples. Resonant and wave-guiding systems are present in the vast majority of optical and electronic systems. Their role is to temporarily store energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and then release them. For more than 100 hundred years, these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental: the length of time a wave could be stored was inversely proportional to its bandwidth. This relationship was interpreted to mean that it was impossible to store large amounts of data in resonant or wave-guiding systems over a long period of time because increasing the bandwidth meant decreasing the storage time and quality of storage.
This law was first formulated by K. S. Johnson in 1914, at Western Electric Company (the forerunner of Bell Telephone Laboratories). He introduced the concept of the Q factor, according to which a resonator can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time. Increasing the storage time meant decreasing the bandwidth, and vice versa. A small bandwidth means a limited range of frequencies (or 'colors') and therefore a limited amount of data.
Until now, this concept had never been challenged. Physicists and engineers had always built resonant systems—like those to produce lasers, make electronic circuits and conduct medical diagnoses—with this constraint in mind.
But that limitation is now a thing of the past. The researchers came up with a hybrid resonant / wave-guiding system made of a magneto-optic material that, when a magnetic field is applied, is able to stop the wave and store it for a prolonged period, thereby accumulating large amounts of energy. Then when the magnetic field is switched off, the trapped pulse is released. With such asymmetric and non-reciprocal systems, it was possible to store a wave for a very long period of time while also maintaining a large bandwidth. The conventional time-bandwidth limit was even beaten by a factor of 1,000. The scientists further showed that, theoretically, there is no upper ceiling to this limit at all in these asymmetric (non-reciprocal) systems.
"It was a moment of revelation when we discovered that these new structures did not feature any time-bandwidth restriction at all. These systems are unlike what we have all been accustomed to for decades, and possibly hundreds of years", says Tsakmakidis, the study's lead author. "Their superior wave-storage capacity performance could really be an enabler for a range of exciting applications in diverse contemporary and more traditional fields of research." Hatice Altug adds..

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.

Which leads me to the simple question if light can be manipulated such that it has a billion fold momentum for the same energy. Maybe that's what's happening, just not yet a billion fold. Such 'heavy light' certainly would be useful for thrust.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/26/2017 09:59 PM
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D

Jamie -
I think you will be very pleased with the Prusa printer.   A close friend and former coworker has one and for precision and accuracy of build it does an outstanding job, plus the user interface etc are first rate.  Now -  I love my Delta printer (Rostock V2) - print volume about about 25cm dia x 40cm high), but the Prusa works fantastic.   It will likely be my next addition to the additive  fab side of the house.  I think it will complement the Delta - especially for smaller prints. 

 As I type this I am looking at several of my buddy's giveaways (once yu get a 3D printer you end up with lots of "extra" items you just had to try from thingiverse etc - you end up giving away a LOT of little items) including a thumb wrench, plastic lab jack and a novelty double threaded (bi-directional) nut and bolt assemble.   I am VERY impressed with the quality of printing even with basic ABS and PLA.   

Bye the way the Prusa folks have some awesome customer service. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/26/2017 10:57 PM
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

......

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.
Ok, a basic question...  As far as I can recall there has never been any experimental evidence of this with the fustrums right?  All the simulations and instrumentation showed the fustrums behaving like symmetrical wave guides.  Is this something that is an artifact that is built in based on the "old" understanding of Q?  Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/27/2017 02:44 AM
(...)
I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.
(...)
Yes, I should explain myself if I can...

Attempting to define complex time requires the definition of a dynamic within which it fits. When I try to do this I stray into Twistor Space which defeats the purpose by being impossible to visualize.

The only transparent visualization I can find has moments of spacetime with point origin at a charge, from which there is coincidence with all locations at intervals ict. These are the locations in spacetime where absorption of energy, which is emitted at that origin, can occur.

This has consequences, first that no intermediary particle or wave is required for that transfer of energy and secondly, sequence remote from the observer is unique to the observers perspective.

The transfer of energy between remote charges then falls into two categories both acting by dilation of time. First gravity and inertia which are the continuous interaction of all charges proportional to the inverse square of their separation and second, electromagnetic action which is the transfer of quantum between resonant pairs of charges irrespective of their separation.

Complex time is then, the structure which allows connection between charges separated by ict and is complex because ict has coincident solutions at both locations in spacetime. Maybe this is just philosophy but what other explanation is there for the motion of charges within the emdrive, engendering its acceleration?

With respect for those who describe virtual particles, I cannot force myself to imagine them :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/27/2017 04:57 AM


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.

Understood. Yes it seems that way and I agree with you. It is just that I can not shake the feeling that there are some people that just wish that this device does not work. I do not plan to go to any conspiracies, I just collect available informations. I guess it is just my feeling and I will leave it at that. Maybe I also just too much wish that this device works and others just happily crush others people dreams.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/27/2017 07:49 AM
Understood. Yes it seems that way and I agree with you. It is just that I can not shake the feeling that there are some people that just wish that this device does not work. I do not plan to go to any conspiracies, I just collect available informations. I guess it is just my feeling and I will leave it at that. Maybe I also just too much wish that this device works and others just happily crush others people dreams.
I don't think there is a problem with being highly skeptical, as long you remain open minded and are willing to approach "the story" with a positive attitude.

A lot of people inhere have been putting time and effort into this "EM-drive project" but does not mean they are unconditional "believers". But the prospect that there is a small chance that it does work is enough to keep the interest and positive -but critical- approach going...

As for the conspiracy theories, I think there probably is some opposition, but that is nothing extraordinary as (potential) new technologies are always perceived as a menace to existing economical models...

There are dozens of non EMdrive related examples of that. But , in the end, all efforts to stop new technology will fail. That's a constant one should learn from human history...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tea monster on 06/27/2017 11:13 AM
The problem is that there are a lot of crazies and charlatans on the interwebz. Not saying that you guys are, but there are a lot of crazy, crackpot ideas out there. This ranges from people who 'find' pictures of Sasquatch in NASA Mars photos, down to anti-vaxers.

If someone comes out and proposes an idea that seems too much like science fantasy, and a lot of well-respected scientists say that it shouldn't be possible, then it's going to take a lot more effort to convince people that the idea is sound.

I don't know about you guys, but I remember the Dean drive. Once bitten, etc.

But , in the end, all efforts to stop new technology will fail. That's a constant one should learn from human history...

Look up 'Project Orion'.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/27/2017 05:27 PM
Look up 'Project Orion'.

I can design a trebuchet to get me from my back yard to the nearest grocery store. It will work. It will be reusable. I'm not going to do it. It's not a holdback on new technology. It's not new technology at all.


Project Orion is hard to even call new technology. Riding a shock wave happens often, its just the riders are usually victims.

It had numerous issues working against it. I doubt anyone denies that theoretically blowing things up behind a giant shock absorber will work. It's not cheap for starters.  An Orion ship would have required multiple detonation devices, and military devices would have been overkill. There is not an inexhaustible amount of fissile material. The vehicles would have to have been constructed in orbit (realistically launching these from Earth was never a real option. We can discuss that on some other thread, but i think it's been done before) very stoutly. Again, not cheap, and the engineering was not certain. Throw in possible treaty violations, radiation concerns, etc, Orion is just an idea that must probably sit forever on the shelf of history unless for some reason someone is desperate enough to need it and has no other option. The problem is there are always other options.

I'm as tired of the frauds as anyone, but I don't see the EMdrive experimenters and theorists putting incredible efforts into this in any such light. Even if it has no more thrust than is useful for station-keeping, that will be extremely useful. That's why I keep watching this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/28/2017 01:51 AM
These experiments were done at atmospheric pressure and should be done in vacuum. My understanding is that others who have done it in vacuum have not seen the effect.

As for me too, the BB effect was a case closed since the 1990s. But I am happy we can discuss here some peculiar points.

Contrary to the belief, experiments have also been done in a vacuum, but maybe it was not high enough (10-6 torr) and a plasma was still flowing between electrodes? Another thing: if the Biefeld-Brown effect is just electrohydrodynamic in nature (ionic wind), can someone explain why a measurable force is still detected when those asymmetric capacitors are put inside a closed metallic box immersed in insulating oil?

This kind of test had been conducted by Townsend Brown himself, as well as Takaaki Musha on behalf of Honda Motor Co. who detected up to 2 grams of change on the balance with 8kVAC and 18KVDC currents (Musha's paper"Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect from the standpoint of ZPF field" published in JBIS in 2008 is attached below as long as a schematic diagram of his experiment).

Info seen after this post of Quantum Gravity (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1692673#msg1692673) in the other topic.

Were there major flaws in Brown and Musha's experiments? EMI/HV interference with the setup? Ionic wind in the air around the whole setup?

In regards to this experiment you mention a problem of wind.  Wind problems are because momentum is carried off into some external part of the environment, providing some means of propulsion as does a propellant.  I would probably recommend an enclosed system to eliminate the possibility of momentum being carried off and giving the the device the equal and opposite of the missing momentum.  I think I recently gave an example of such an enclosed testing apparatus here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070 .  It could also be as simple as just encasing the object so hot air/ionic wind can not be vectored off in a single direction.  The device + box should not have a net momentum. 

The Crookes Radiometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer does best in an incomplete vacuum and works off thermal vectoring of air particles I believe.  The experiment having been done in vacuum of 10E-6 torr does seem to be in its benefit, but  that may depend on the physics of the system which is different from the Radiometer.  It's easiest just to eliminate the possibility of net momentum altogether. 

If as you claim some experiment has placed them in some enclosed box where no net momentum can be had and that box experienced some net momentum I would be very interested as that "might" indicate some propellant-less effect. 

The only thing I might wonder about would be if some current was induced in the box itself with the result of a magnetic field reaching outside the box. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/28/2017 02:09 AM
bad astra,

Would you care to define a serious effort in terms of dollars and sense. Here is a good start...

The scalability of any propellentless propulsion system depends on using a number of methods for amplifying the power signal including scaling of mechanical, electrical and geometric construction for unidirectional thrust. The emDrive is current a drive without a theory albeit a number of attempts are underway, some of which are diving deeper towards that of new physics including quantum field theory and quantum gravity. However, the real serious folks are looking at inertial mass and changes in momentum, both linear and angular. After all, any 1st year physics student would require conservation of momentum as a condition.

For the gravity folks, the best bet appears to be the Mach-Woodward thruster, a thruster with a theory. For the quantum folks, the best bet appears to be the emDrive with theory-of-the-day.

There may be some common ground between the two approaches since parametric amplification and couplings are needed to produce a decent theory involving non-linear oscillations.

The open question is what contributions from EM permit a change in momentum, E' = (d(mv)/dt)= F. Electrostatic, electrodynamics, QCD and QED are just a few. Picking the right variation of Maxwell equations might help although Dirac's version is favored while the Axion version might just catch on.

For theories, the critical level to provide some prediction and projection of what might be is just not there. Some folks are resorting to guessing while others are at least setting a goal of rigor. The plain truth is that not much is moving in a single emDrive that exceed a certain ratio like thrust/mass in N/kg or thrust/power in N/kWe.

Designs of arrays await the development and small production of any PP drive that exceeds 1N/kWe AND that can last 10 years.  For a 10 year projected life cycle of an interstellar vehicle, over a trillion thrust cycles are required for even the most conservative approaches to the nearest star system with planets.

The simple fact is that these drives require a multidisciplinary approach which is really a team approach, not something an individual effort can design/build by themselves. After all, this is why we are all here. To learn from each other...no matter how painful or humbling it might be.




Time will tell,
 
David
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/28/2017 03:12 AM
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

So lets say we have this ion cloud at the tip of the frustum and the photons are impacting free electrons up there and more effectively transferring energy.  After the electron "more effectively" absorbs some momentum this transfers some to the proton/nucleus afterwards and these air particles effectively then strike the cavity.  The cavity more effectively gains momentum because the air particles are much more massive than photons.  The air particles having lost some of their momentum return with less velocity only to repeat the process.  So we have momentum more effectively being absorbed from photons at the narrow end of the cavity than from the big end. 

Light striking the large end after the drive accelerates is less able to absorb its momentum back (via the 2nd order effects of a Doppler shift), so over all light loses energy. 

Could that possibly make sense? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/28/2017 08:12 AM
Look up 'Project Orion'.

I can design a trebuchet to get me from my back yard to the nearest grocery store. It will work. It will be reusable. I'm not going to do it. It's not a holdback on new technology. It's not new technology at all.


Project Orion is hard to even call new technology. Riding a shock wave happens often, its just the riders are usually victims.

It had numerous issues working against it. I doubt anyone denies that theoretically blowing things up behind a giant shock absorber will work. It's not cheap for starters.  An Orion ship would have required multiple detonation devices, and military devices would have been overkill. There is not an inexhaustible amount of fissile material. The vehicles would have to have been constructed in orbit (realistically launching these from Earth was never a real option. We can discuss that on some other thread, but i think it's been done before) very stoutly. Again, not cheap, and the engineering was not certain. Throw in possible treaty violations, radiation concerns, etc, Orion is just an idea that must probably sit forever on the shelf of history unless for some reason someone is desperate enough to need it and has no other option. The problem is there are always other options.

I'm as tired of the frauds as anyone, but I don't see the EMdrive experimenters and theorists putting incredible efforts into this in any such light. Even if it has no more thrust than is useful for station-keeping, that will be extremely useful. That's why I keep watching this.

Great post - I especially like the  last paragraph  !!  And interesting points WRT Project Orion, but I believe it was originally mentioned by flyby  as a counter example to the concept that you can't keep a new idea/technology/development down/suppressed..

Was Orion new development?? Well in the early 1950's it was much more so than it appears now.  Certainly there were technical hurdles to overcome - and some which would be very hard to solve.   But it progressed to a flying model - yes it did fly albeit with conventional explosives.    Other variations of the concept were proposed using fusion vice fission and an electromagnetic "Blast plate".   Another "new technology" from the time which SO FAR has not been developed to flying status are nuclear heated rocket engines (Project Nerva).   I doubt a classic Orion approach will ever be used - or it might just save humankind (see Footfall - Niven and Pournelle 1985)

The point is that it does happen that new ideas, new technologies etc may  grow and flourish or may wither away - for many reasons.   In order to grow and flourish they need a fertile ground (good theoretical underpinnings, a certain amount of economic viability, a workable way to utilize the development, etc) and careful nurturing ( open mindedness and critical thinking, interested persons and groups, nutrients i.e. funding and time, peer reviews and market reviews and work work work by those interested persons and parties).

WRT EMDrive,  If it is to ever be a useful device it must first a) EXIST as a real effect and b) be nurtured and tended. I suspect that if condition a) is met there will be large number of nurturers and tenders.  Yes - even if it is a low thrust device only useable for stationkeeping and attitude control.

The efforts and contributions here for both theoretical and experimental arenas are just fantastic.  The use of the internet and forums like NSF is a stunning example of what open discussions and cooperation can do.  The DIY contributions likewise are also stunning in their depth and quality and personal contribution and sacrifice.  I think in the next few months we will likely have a lot of experimental "red meat" to chew on.   

Sorry for the longwinded post - off for some rest now.

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tea monster on 06/28/2017 08:53 AM
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/28/2017 12:15 PM
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njM7xlQIjnQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njM7xlQIjnQ)

Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/28/2017 07:16 PM
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)


Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Yes, please design for big effects and not micronewtons!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/28/2017 08:05 PM
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)


Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Yes, please design for big effects and not micronewtons!
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/29/2017 01:17 AM
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

So lets say we have this ion cloud at the tip of the frustum and the photons are impacting free electrons up there and more effectively transferring energy.  After the electron "more effectively" absorbs some momentum this transfers some to the proton/nucleus afterwards and these air particles effectively then strike the cavity.  The cavity more effectively gains momentum because the air particles are much more massive than photons.  The air particles having lost some of their momentum return with less velocity only to repeat the process.  So we have momentum more effectively being absorbed from photons at the narrow end of the cavity than from the big end. 

Light striking the large end after the drive accelerates is less able to absorb its momentum back (via the 2nd order effects of a Doppler shift), so over all light loses energy. 

Could that possibly make sense?

What is curious about a plasma possibly existing in the cavity is that the plasma can more effectively absorb kinetic energy from light.  I think I remember Shell mentioning the possibility of plasma in the cavity at one point in time.  Possibly this is why she made her cavity see through or that screen mesh?  The plasma would need to be created, so energy would start to be stored in the cavity and later plasma could form when the electric fields become strong enough to strip electrons from the gasses inside. 

The formation of too much plasma and I question if it could possibly start to interfere with the stored energy in the cavity,(the free electrons being too reflective), the wavelength might not constructively interfere any more, causing energy to be rejected from the cavity.  For it to work, some light would have to pass through the plasma and resonate in the cavity to sustain the electric fields that sustain the plasma. 

After that you need light that resonates between the big cavity wall and the plasma toward the narrow end of the cavity.  The plasma doesn't need to touch the cavity wall and should in fact be repelled from the changing magnetic field via the currents in the cavity.  So basically the plasma more effectively absorbs kinetic energy from light and then passes this on to the cavity via repulsion off the cavities changing magnetic field. 

The need to sustain both currents in the cavity at a certain wavelength, and current induced in the plasma via another wavelength may mean multiple wavelengths are required. 

This provides a possible means for the cavity to travel pointed end forwards if the plasma is near the pointed end but may depend on the plasma's location and possibly/possibly not with respect to where your injecting the radiation.  I.e. I'm not sure what effect it would have to inject the radiation inside the plasma as opposed to injecting the radiation at the end where there is no plasma.  I suspect injecting radiation in the middle of the plasma may have an effect of reducing any propulsive effect but maybe not. 

I would suspect you would want the location of the injecting antenna to be about a quarter wavelength away from the big plate for both injected wavelengths.  Could this be why large freq. splatter of microwave oven magnetrons work? (injecting multiple wavelengths?) 

Does it coinside with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 06/29/2017 01:28 AM
Quote
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)

But according to Meep, we can get an order of magnitude over a photon rocket just by radiating evanescent waves through gaps in the big end. Of course, Meep results may be suspect and my operation of Meep is justifiably suspect.

I did this work back in 2015 and posted some of it. That was just after I had started using Meep and knew nothing about it. I quit pursuing this approach because the results were all over the place so I thought then, and maybe still think, that there were problems in my understanding of the tool I was using. Many of the runs showed much more force than the attached but ... Well, if these runs were right after all, then maybe some of the other runs showing micro-newton forces were also realistic?

Steve
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 12:40 PM
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 12:56 PM
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Here is the link and the attachment:

https://goo.gl/ixUF72

Could you expand on this report by the BBC by providing further details of what program it was on, was it on TV or radio, was it in a documentary or part of the news?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mk65 on 06/29/2017 02:19 PM
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/29/2017 03:03 PM
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m.

Monomorphic,

Let's look at this in another way, by developing a ionization or coronal discharges.

Tipler, Paul A. College Physics. Worth, 1987: 467   
Quote
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 106 V/m." 3 × 106 V/m"

That works out roughly to .3KV/M dependent of several factors within the frustum to start the process creating an ionization of the air.

That's not what I was looking at.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Plasma_wheel_2_med_DSIR2018.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
The values for the last two parameters are usually considered to be about 30-32 kV/cm (in air [1]) and 0.301 cm½ respectively. This latter law can be considered to hold also in different setups, where the corresponding voltage is different due to geometric reasons.

 

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/29/2017 03:10 PM
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)

Indeed - as an old saying goes (likely I am misquoting and I can't remember the source so my apologies in advance to the originator) - "The distance between 0 and 1 is far greater than the distance between 1 and 100."  Final Definitive confirmation will be a paradigm shift about 9.0 on the Richter scale (to mix and mangle some metaphors).   Although I do suspect that (if) and when even micronewton thrust is confirmed substantial improvements will be possible between establishing a theoretical underpinning and conducing a thorough set of engineering performance testing against a wide range of parameters.

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Edited to fix quote command syntax error
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 04:09 PM

Quote
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 106 V/m." 3 × 106 V/m"

That works out roughly to .3KV/M dependent of several factors within the frustum to start the process creating an ionization of the air.

Wolfram says it's 3000 kV/m: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3+%C3%97+10%5E6+V%2Fm+to+kV%2Fm

30 kv/cm is 3,000 kV/m

To get to 3000kV/m lobes just on the small end, FEKO results are ~15kW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 05:43 PM
Hold on, I used kV/m when it should be kV/cm. Let me redo that.  Will edit the comment above. 

30 kV/cm is 3000 kV/m. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=30+kV%2Fcm+to+kV%2Fm

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/29/2017 05:48 PM
Hold on, I used kV/m when it should be kV/cm. Let me redo that.

30 kV/cm is 3000 kV/m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
The values for the last two parameters are usually considered to be about 30-32 kV/cm (in air [1]) and 0.301 cm½ respectively. This latter law can be considered to hold also in different setups, where the corresponding voltage is different due to geometric reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 05:56 PM
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/29/2017 06:04 PM
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?

Not sure. Intriguing bit, I only got that they "can't talk publicly about it at the moment".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/29/2017 06:23 PM
Thank you Shell and Mono.  I take it that means it is not likely there is ionized air at the top of the cavity, trapped in that standing electric field.  On the other hand... What about resonance with moisture?  Microwaves do resonate with water.  I wonder if they took that into account.  I am guessing the 3000kv/m is a non-resonant figure.  sorry microwaves do not resonate water molecules.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 06:32 PM
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?

Not sure. Intriguing bit, I only got that they "can't talk publicly about it at the moment".

It sounds to me like a ve