just curious have you seen the NBF article:http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/theory-explaining-electromagnetic.htmlit seems topical to your post.also in away topical to Woodward's book where he is talking about electron modeling and the problems of eliminating divergences or infinities.
I did my thesis on the nature of the magnetic field and we were trying to detect if it could rotate axially. The idea was to take a solenoid and rotate it axially and imagine the magnetic field lines would rotate axially with it. As a result by (v x B) of these rotating magnetic field lines an electric field should come off the solenoid with a 1/r^2 dependence. We set up a capacitor and estimated what we should see. The experiment was done with a permanent magnet and solenoid. Both resulted in a negative indication of magnetic field line rotation. After some investigation it became more obvious that the magnetic field shouldn't rotate but rather radiates to change orientation. The nature of information is to radiate in a radial direction and if you look into the electric field of a charge moving in a circle, you will notice the electric field doesn't rotate with the charge. The magnetic field being what describes the relativistic behavior of the electric field (Edward Purcell Electricity and Magnetism: electric field pancaking) it becomes obvious that the magnetic field of a charge also can't rotate but rather also radiates to change orientation. After this it became evident the speed limits in changes of the magnetic field (time retarded information) and that electromagnetic propulsion should be possible. I began with a diagram of current in two wires and mapped out the time retarded behavior of two wires a distance of 1/4 lambda which had their currents 90 degrees out of phase and got a unidirectional force. Later, it was realized a current flows because of charge separation and current flow induces charge separation so this was later included in the wire diagram. A unidirectional force from the static charge was also found but appears to oppose the magnetic unidirectional force on the wires. It turns out this dual wire diagram is a phased array antenna and indeed you do get propulsion even with the opposing forces (magnetic and static electric) which is photon propulsion. Phased array antennas can direct radiation in desired directions just by modifying the phase of currents in straight antenna. I latter stumbled across a patent, the EM drive and the Woodward effect which I highly suspect is connected to what I am dealing with. No idea what is behind the EM drive but maybe they are connected. After watching the EM drive for a while it became evident of a way to cancel the opposing static electric force using resonating cavities. That is if I take the antenna of the phased array antenna and loop it then for a standing wave I cancel the charge separation and only the magnetic force works. This happens inside of a resonant cavity for transverse electric fields, one mode being TE011 for a cylindrical cavity. Instead of energy alternating in the cavity between current and charge separation (magnetic and capacitance) you get energy alternating between current and light stored in the cavity (J and -dB/dt=light=curl E). To excite this mode I suspect we would need an antenna inside the cavity shaped in the shape of the mode we want to excite. That is the wire should be in the shape of the mode induced and 1/4 lambda from the inside plate for constructive interference of reflected energy. I don't consider myself an expert in microwave engineering so remember that. I am using my intuition but I know the electric field will be oriented in the direction of the wire and that will induce the currents in the cavity. The other issue is matching the frequency of two adjacent cavities. For TE modes with no current flow from the flat circle plate to the side walls we don't have to worry about electrical connectivity of one of the end plates. Changing the distance of an end plate changes the frequency in the cavity. We can monitor the frequency in one cavity and match it with the other cavity. We can then control the phase to the current by the phase of the injected radiation and also by increasing or decreasing the frequency of one cavity by moving the cavity plate then moving the plate back and leaving the light slightly out of phase (probably easier to control the phase of the injected radiation). Current in one cavity perceives the current in the lower cavity as repulsive (magnetic). The cavity plates are separated by a distance of 1/4 lambda (wavelength). Due to information delay of apparent current and the phase relation the current in the other cavity perceives its partner to be attractive. So we have an asymmetry in force over complete cycles (see paper 1 for diagrams). Essentially we are playing with time and space and taking advantage that the information can not travel beyond a speed limit of light. Considering only the magnetic force is now pulling, we may get forces beyond photon propulsion and we may find out there is a connection to space time manipulation or gravitational in nature. What is interesting about the dual cavity experiment proposed is that there might be no radiation (dynamic magnetic field -dB/dt) emitted as the radiation should be trapped inside the cavities. At the same time there isn't really a reason why the magnetic force between the cavities shouldn't be there as they should still observe the relativistic dipole distribution of current associated with the static magnetic field. This static magnetic field should be observable outside a resonant cavity just by holding up a magnetic field sensor to the base. A voltage should be observed to osculate at the frequency of the current in the cavity. This is because the magnetic field sensor uses current in motion inside the sensor to sense the dipole redistribution of other currents (the magnetic field) (i.e. dipole electric fields and magnetic fields both decrease by 1/r^3) (see paper 1). I would like to propose this as a possible test of the Woodward effect if indeed it is just dealing with time retarded information. Dual resonant cavities (paper 1) The file is attached below as "magnetic propulsion.pdf". I think it has potential and appears simple enough to allow understanding of what is happening. Power in simplicity. There is a possibly related patent I mentioned earlier but does not deal with resonant cavities though should be possible with radio frequencies and dielectrics: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=electromagnetic.TI.&s2=propulsion.TI.&OS=TTL/electromagnetic+AND+TTL/propulsion&RS=TTL/electromagnetic+AND+TTL/propulsionPlease pardon the horribly long link. I also believe DavidWaite is also onto the same thing and you can see his video here: In his case he flips the solenoid and the static electric field so that they both provide propulsion in the same direction but I suspect in his case you are also dealing with emitted radiation.If I had the money or connections I would be trying to develop this myself but I am not that fortunate and I don't want to see this possibility pass us by. I'd at least like to make the connections to see if it will really work.
Please pardon the horribly long link.
Dustinthewind, maybe you should try to join Woodward's mailing list?
Quote from: aceshigh on 09/24/2015 10:30 pmDustinthewind, maybe you should try to join Woodward's mailing list?I am not sure what Woodward thinks of the EM drives and the apparent forces they get from those yet. Some of those forces I am sure are convection currents of course but there was one vacuum test by NASA.
Has James Woodward confirmed that after a sufficient time of operation, the acquired cinetic energy of his standalone device (observed from the initial referential) will overpass the total amount of energy used to operate it ?
The correct way to do the calculation is to consider very small increments of time -- increments so small that the kinetic energy acquired by the accelerating body in the interval remains a small fraction of the input energy. One then sums the input and kinetic energies for the intervals over the duration of the application of the thrust. Since the kinetic energy never exceeds the input energy in any interval, the summed kinetic energy increments cannot exceed the input energy increment sum. No conservation violation. Reasonable physics.
Consider a rocket motor attached to a rotor arm. [...] Fuel is delivered to the motor through tubes in the rotor arm at a steady rate [...] Guess what? Eventually the kinetic energy of the motor exceeds the input energy in the fuel. Another violation of energy conservation!
Now, since that specious argument leads to energy conservation violations for both Mach systems and easily envisaged normal systems, it should be obvious that the problem is NOT that energy conservation is being violated.
Quote from: Mezzenile on 11/06/2015 04:39 amHas James Woodward confirmed that after a sufficient time of operation, the acquired cinetic energy of his standalone device (observed from the initial referential) will overpass the total amount of energy used to operate it ?Not at all: Jim Woodward strongly says Mach Effect Thrusters do NOT violate energy and momentum conservation, and can't become overunity free-energy machines. Let me summarize this thought below ...
I have already shown elsewhere that a rocket of any type cannot go over unity, whether or not it is mounted on a flywheel. I have also derived a condition that must apply to the Mach effect thruster if it works the way the equations seem to say it does (ie: no dependence of thrust on velocity) if global conservation of energy is to be respected.http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=103524#p103524http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=103729#p103729http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=105085#p105085......That interaction with the rest of the causally-connected universe is where the "extra" energy comes from. In fact it is the entire reason anything happens at all. The work done by an M-E thruster is largely unrelated to the local energy input, in the same sense in which the work done by the wind on a sailboat is largely unrelated to the energy expended by the crew moving the sails around. As far as I know there is no theoretical upper limit on the thrust efficiency of a Mach-effect device.
Just to be extra clear (since some people have trouble with this sort of thing), this all depends on the M-E thruster actually working as claimed, which as far as I know does not yet appear to be beyond reasonable doubt.If it does work, yes, it'll be great.Also, please note that since the thruster is supposed to be interacting with the distant universe via gravinertial transactional radiation, it is not an isolated system...
Also, please note that since the thruster is supposed to be interacting with the distant universe via gravinertial transactional radiation, it is not an isolated system...
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking?