Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11  (Read 644568 times)

Offline TheTraveller

...

Hi Meberbs,

Mass does not know velocity. Current, initial or final.

The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. What some observer in another frame observes as the mass' velocity has no effect on the work that is needed to be done to accelerate a mass.

Every observer can measure the same work done, ie a frame invarient result, if they use the Dv caused by the acceleration of the mass, instead of calculating final KE - initial KE, which as we know is not correct and is frame variant.

This may not be what you were taught but it is correct and does work to produce a frame invarient way to calc the work done, resultant change in KE, momentum and velocity when accelerating mass.

Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2018 02:53 am by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 1
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted!   He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null. 

From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
Hi Mr. Jimaes, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
EmDrive is not an reactionless drive. It generates assymetric radiation pressure due to the tapered cavity.
And you just demonstrated the reason why I decided to use the word propellantless instead of reactionless. You simply don't understand what the word means. As I said:
TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.
To conserve momentum, and not be a reactionless drive something has to leave the drive or it has to push against something external.

You are entitled to you opinion. However it is incorrect and the EmDrive works just fine.
None of the statements you are responding to involve opinion, they are facts like 1+1=2. There is nothing incorrect about them. You need to say something more than "they are wrong," mods have warned about that already

Might be time for you and others here to look outside the square for why it does so. Maybe study what Roger shares, instead of just ignoring it?
I have looked at what he shares and explained exactly why it is wrong. You however have not even bothered actually reading the definition of terms shared with you such as "reactionless."

The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. What some observer in another frame observes as the mass' velocity has no effect on the work that is needed to be done to accelerate a mass.
Work at one of its most basic definitions is force times distance. How far the object travels is a function of its velocity.

This may not be what you were taught but it is correct and does work to produce a frame invarient way to calc the work done, resultant change in KE, momentum and velocity when accelerating mass.

Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
Kinetic energy by definition is a function of velocity, any result that claims otherwise is obviously wrong. The previous posts I linked you to show with numeric calculations that your method gives unequivocally wrong and inconsistent answers.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Hi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?

The torsional pendulum works great now that I switched to liquid metal contacts and covered everything in insulation. I have a sensitivity of ~0.2uN, which I am very pleased with. However, now that I've eliminated most of the error sources, I only appear to be seeing what I think is asymmetric thermal expansion of the amplifier PCB board. This is also what I suspect is behind the ~10uN that the Polish group has also detected as we use identical main amplifiers.

Next, I plan on modifying the cavity you sent me so that I can attempt to create traveling waves instead of standing waves. This may involve drilling a hole into the side so I can insert the antenna along the side-walls as recommended by Shawyer. It may also be useful to run some simulations in the time domain rather than only the frequency domain, that way we can see if there are traveling waves in specific configurations.

I'm also interested in testing some of the lower order modes such as TM010, TE111, TM011 and Tx11x - but that will require a couple of more cavities, albeit smaller than the huge TE013 cavity.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2018 02:10 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
Hi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?

The torsional pendulum works great now that I switched to liquid metal contacts and covered everything in insulation. I have a sensitivity of ~0.2uN, which I am very pleased with. However, now that I've eliminated most of the error sources, I only appear to be seeing what I think is asymmetric thermal expansion of the amplifier PCB board. This is also what I suspect is behind the ~10uN that the Polish group has also detected as we use identical main amplifiers.

Next, I plan on modifying the cavity you sent me so that I can attempt to create traveling waves instead of standing waves. This may involve drilling a hole into the side so I can insert the antenna along the side-walls as recommended by Shawyer. It may also be useful to run some simulations in the time domain rather than only the frequency domain, that way we can see if there are traveling waves in specific configurations.

I'm also interested in testing some of the lower order modes such as TM010, TE111, TM011 and Tx11x - but that will require a couple of more cavities, albeit smaller than the huge TE013 cavity.

If it is the expansion of the PCB board, there should be ways to make it certain. Say, test with different arrangements of the board.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1729
An investigation of traveling waves could be worthwhile.  If the "mirror" cavities are used as part of the calculation, they guarantee zero thrust for a standing wave solution.  The traveling wave might find a solution that emulates an accelerator in "mirror" space.  I suspect it would require a particular phase shift on reflection to maintain the asymmetry over many reflections.

Edit: (an interesting thought is that the complete "mirror" space, including radial, is quite distorted.  Does it have a universal asymmetry?)
« Last Edit: 07/18/2018 03:28 pm by Notsosureofit »

Offline wicoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 151
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies.

This is so wrong... it is clearly easier to accelerate an object to a certain dV when it's standing still than to accelerate it by the same amount when it's already moving. This follows right from the formula for kinetic energy.  The work required to accelerate an object clearly depends on the ref. frame.  I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
« Last Edit: 07/18/2018 08:18 pm by wicoe »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies.

This is so wrong... it is clearly easier to accelerate an object to a certain dV when it's standing still than to accelerate it by the same amount when it's already moving. This follows right from the formula for kinetic energy.  The work required to accelerate an object clearly depends on the ref. frame.  I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?

You are correct and it is obvious!

The problem is the theory that TT is attempting to promote claims the EmDrive as the frame for its own acceleration... That is almost like saying it pushes against itself to accelerate. If taken to a reputable Physics discussion Forum(s), it would be set straight in short order. Going down that kind of rabbit hole here is just a bit outside the thread’s primary purpose.

There may be room at some point to work out how a self contained propellant-less drive might function, without violating CoE. But that really adds nothing to the experimental efforts at present.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2018 12:56 am by OnlyMe »

Offline RERT

Shawyers Moon probe is posited at 10000kg, with peak velocity 10000 mph. It's kinetic energy is 10E11 Joules, or thereabouts. Taking his word that energy is conserved, the 34kW thrusters must take more than 800 hours to reach that speed, not 72 for the round trip as he suggests. Also, even if I take the fuel cells to be the entire launch mass, the energy density of the fuel cells would have to be over 11000 Wh/kg.

I don't think this is even self-consistent speculation.

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted!   He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null. 

From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."

Well, well, James Spottiswoode also built an EmDrive setup (I know him from another field of research). It looks quite professional (I hope he also measured inside an enclosure, though).
'Failed replication'. This probably means he measured no anomalous force.
We just have to wait for his publication, I guess.  :-\
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
This is so wrong...   I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?

Yes, it is obvious.

It is because we all here have this strong emotional attachment to space and all things space. If the Em drive and Mach effect drives were pitched as free energy machines (and they could have been) we would sneer at them. But since they're pitched as space drives we embrace them. We make excuses for them like "people thought mas was conserved at one time", or "kinetic energy is proportional to (dv)^2, not v^2" or "it's pushing against the entire universe". We even spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours trying to build them.

Deep down we're all still ten year olds when it comes to space. I don't exclude myself.

And that's not entirely a bad thing. Great things come just as often from strong emotional attachment as from detached rationalism. Musk is an obvious example, with his fascination with Mars.

Offline RERT

Jim - maybe it has something to do with the EMdrive being worth $10^13 or so if real. Despite the easy ridicule, we did once think that mass was conserved, and we were wrong. Something like that could happen again.

I said a few threads back that I thought Shawyer was either right, delusional, or crooked - he has spent more than enough money and time to know the answer on the EMdrive. Sadly I'm leaning towards delusional today.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Jim - maybe it has something to do with the EMdrive being worth $10^13 or so if real.

No, it goes further than that. If free energy scams turned out to be real they would be worth just as much but we don't gush over them and spend thousands trying to build them. But since Em drives, etc are pitched as space drives the pitch goes right to our hearts bypassing our brains.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
Personally, I still keep a ten year old spot in my heart and mind, and I do it on purpose.

Children in general are true scientists, discovering the world as it is without preconceptions unless we stop them. Education, even good well meaning one, takes off some of that child like curiosity. Life tends to peel off the rest if we allow it.

It is very easy to overlook many things in your older ages if you don't keep some of this ability to keep your eyes open and see things as they are before making your own opinion.

So, I try to keep and open mind and an evidence based approach, even with weird, unlikely assertions.

You say this contraption pushes when microwaves are resonating inside it? good. Prove it.

While the information about this particular assertion is still inconclusive, I feel as time passes that such inconclusiveness is never going to end, precisely because we are dealing with real things (thermal and EM noise) and wishes (we want this to be real).

In any case, I still think it's necessary to go to the bottom of this, regardless of the conclusions. At least it will become a lesson on the pitfalls of wishful thinking, or a body of experience for those making similar claims in the future, about the many challenges there are to prove any similar claims.

Who knows? we may be seeing things that really linger at the limit of measurement, but that we may learn eventually that were true, but only after the 'magic ingredient' to amplify them is found.

« Last Edit: 07/20/2018 02:14 am by tchernik »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 1579
Personally, I still keep a ten year old spot in my heart and mind, and I do it on purpose.

Children in general are true scientists, discovering the world as it is without preconceptions unless we stop them. Education, even good well meaning one, takes off some of that child like curiosity. Life tends to peel off the rest if we allow it.

It is very easy to overlook many things in your older ages if you don't keep some of this ability to keep your eyes open and see things as they are before making your own opinion.

So, I try to keep and open mind and an evidence based approach, even with weird, unlikely assertions.

You say this contraption pushes when microwaves are resonating inside it? good. Prove it.

While the information about this particular assertion is still inconclusive, I feel as time passes that such inconclusiveness is never going to end, precisely because we are dealing with real things (thermal and EM noise) and wishes (we want this to be real).

In any case, I still think it's necessary to go to the bottom of this, regardless of the conclusions. At least it will become a lesson on the pitfalls of wishful thinking, or a body of experience for those making similar claims in the future, about the many challenges there are to prove any similar claims.

Who knows? we may be seeing things that really linger at the limit of measurement, but that we may learn eventually that were true, but only after the 'magic ingredient' to amplify them is found.
Brilliantly said.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Another brilliant physics episode by Space Time


Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
GHz Rotation of an Optically Trapped Nanoparticle in Vacuum

"We report on rotating an optically trapped silica nanoparticle in vacuum by transferring spin angular momentum of light to the particle’s mechanical angular momentum. At sufficiently low damping, realized at pressures below 10−5 mbar, we observe rotation frequencies of single 100 nm particles exceeding 1 GHz. We find that the steady-state rotation frequency scales linearly with the optical trapping power and inversely with pressure, consistent with theoretical considerations based on conservation of angular momentum. Rapidly changing the polarization of the trapping light allows us to extract the pressure-dependent response time of the particle’s rotational degree of
freedom.
"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.11160.pdf

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
I've completed the simulations of Oyzw's solid copper cavity with different size spacers on the large end. This is to get the resonant frequency within the bandwidth of my main amplifier (2.35Ghz - 2.45Ghz). TE013 was found at ~2.49Ghz without the spacer, so in order to get the full ~30W out of my amplifier, it is necessary to increase the size of the cavity to reduce the resonant frequency to ~2.4Ghz.

I will need to fabricate a spacer that is ~18mm thick to reduce the resonant frequency from ~2.49Ghz to ~2.4ghz. I will do this using foam insulation covered with copper foil adhesive.  This spacer will also allow me to adjust the large end-plate so that it is parallel with the small end-plate.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2018 07:10 am by Monomorphic »

Offline TheTraveller

Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.

https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920

Should be interesting.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • United States
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 10
If somebody gets a chance, is there any chance this concept could get tested before the measuring equipment gets broken down. 

BTW it might be worth it to try measure EMDrive force from the small endplate of the device and not an rotating attachment in the middle.

Tags:
 

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