.../...Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps..../...
The electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.
... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ...
Quote from: raketa on 10/06/2014 07:26 pm2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.It's okay to say this but I just want to point out that what Woodward is saying is that electrons have an undressed negative mass. This distinction between dressed and undressed is not like between rest and other states of an electron. He gives the history behind the notion of "dressing" electrons and those chapters (6 & 7?) in the book are amongst the best. I am extremely impressed with the complexity of the issue and Woodward's ability as per usual to make it crystal clear. 40 years teaching GR will do that for you.
2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/06/2014 01:57 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 11:09 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?There, what DC are you talking about ? You mean DC like in a 9V battery, or RF power at 1GHz but constant (unmodulated) ? And if modulated, how should it be modulated, in amplitude, at what freq, what shape ?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 11:09 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
Quote from: 93143 on 10/06/2014 07:06 amThey're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
They are not the same thing in our universe.
Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Also remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.
Rest Mass and Inertial Mass being different
I bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.
I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm 1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...So, if I understand you correctly you agree that the internal loop will act as an electromagnet, and the DC magnetic field will NOT be shielded by the metal. [I would add that any slowly-varying components of the magnetic field will not be shielded either]We also know that they are using three Neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets and they know they have an interaction from the magnetic damper responsible for an acknowledged ~10 microNewton measured artifact and a changing baseline. (They blame this as resulting from coupling between the magnetic damper and the power cable, though:<<This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.>> p.14)Therefore, there could be an interaction between the DC magnetic field escaping the device, interacting with the magnetic damping field and producing a spurious thrust force that maybe an artifact rather than real thrust ?In other words, if it is a magnetic artifact, this thing would not propel itself in outer space?
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...
Quote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ... OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?Thanks again great to have you here
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
Quote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 09:53 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ... OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?Thanks again great to have you hereI have used FR4 and recognize the red logos on the bare side. Also the copper side can be seen extending out in one of the photos. It looks like the cone section of the cavity is made from lighter weight FR4, using washer-shaped sections to hold it in shape and strengthen it. Lead-Tin solder is used to solder it all together. The solder line can be seen where the large end cap meets the cone.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ... Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?Thank you again for your great post
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...
Quote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ... In other words, the only purpose served by the truncated cone shape of the device is to contain the microwave energy within the cavity, is that right?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 09:50 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ... Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?Thank you again for your great post Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm.../...Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps..../...Quote from: wikipedia microwave cavityThe electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.from there :You mean that kind of loop, or just the loop of the RF circuit ? Unless there is a conducting loop, isn't the circuit supposed to be open in DC, that is, the dielectric cavity is the DC isolating cap in the circuit between the coupling stub and the walls ? Wouldn't a loop closed to DC short circuit the polarisation of the output stage of the amplifier if it had no AC coupling (DC blocking) caps ? Could that go unnoticed ?Otherwise, is there any indication of a conducting loop as the coupling used by "anomalous thrust...", judge Rodal maybe you can state about that ?Edit : what would be the effect of no loop, stub_in/wall_out DC blocking cap configuration, running at high (near breaking) RF E fields and a DC bias in potential ? Then the dielectric could no longer easily be considered perfect isolator, and this bias in potential would change a lot of things, no more "rectifier effect" (sorry John) to explain a direct current component...
Quote from: zen-in on 10/07/2014 12:57 amQuote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 09:50 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/06/2014 08:02 pm... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ... Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?Thank you again for your great post Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out. So we know that in the NASA Eagleworks tests:The Cannae device had a PTFE dielectric resonatorThe truncated cone ("tapered cavity") also had a dielectric resonator (because they stated that when they took it out they measured no thrust), but we don't know exactly what kind of dielectric material
The dielectric resonators I have seen all used a hard ceramic. PTFE is soft, expands with heat and humidity and so would not be useful as a resonator. PTFE is used as a structural and support element in RF connectors, etc because it is low loss. I suspect some type of ceramic resonator was used in the cone shaped device because the return loss is way down at -49 dB. Cavity filters of similar size are used in radio communications systems to provide selectivity for a desired frequency. The VNA swept waveform looks very similar. However the cavity filters used in radio communications have a 1/4 λ stub inside that can be tuned by turning a screw. This 1/4 λ stub is what makes the cavity so selective. If the cone shaped device was just an empty cavity with a loop drive I don't see how it would be so selective (have a Q = 7300). However returning to my earlier statement about the RF theory of this device: It appears it MUST have some kind of high Q resonator inside. If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 07:24 amGiven Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.If I'm not gravely mistaken, Woodward's theory is supposed to involve excitation of mass fluctuations much larger than the E/cē you'd calculate from the local electromagnetics, via gravitational interaction with distant matter. It's supposed to conserve momentum via that same interaction.(Usual caveat: I haven't yet satisfied myself that Woodward's derivation is valid and correctly interpreted. I'm working on it.)Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 12:34 pmQuote from: 93143 on 10/06/2014 07:06 amThey're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principleAlso note that the Nordtvedt effect has not been observed, despite multiple attempts.QuoteThey are not the same thing in our universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceQuoteRemember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!Perhaps you should rephrase this, because right now it makes no sense.QuoteAlso remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.That's because this:QuoteRest Mass and Inertial Mass being differentis forbidden by the Einstein Equivalence Principle. A charged capacitor weighs more, but that gives it more inertia, so the increased force of gravity doesn't result in any extra acceleration.QuoteI bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.Woodward's devices already work. Repeatably, well above the noise floor, in vacuum, with what appear to be rigorous experimental controls, and to within an order of magnitude of a priori thrust predictions.I know Ron said thrust predictions are not made. He was wrong. There's a fairly recent derivation that includes the bulk acceleration requirement explicitly and contains an assumption or two regarding the properties of the material, and it shows surprisingly good quantitative agreement with experiment.Though I have the impression that Woodward's group treats this thrust equation more as a curiosity than a falsifiable prediction, because there are still too many loose variables...Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 12:59 pmI'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.What exactly do you mean by "verified by experiment"?And what do you mean by "safe"? You're essentially postulating the opposite of the Nordtvedt effect, and of course a blatant violation of the strong equivalence principle (which BTW Woodward's theory supposedly respects, being based on GR; I haven't yet got my head around how exactly it manages this).
Ron, you said DC couldn't explain the thrust (and Rodal said that was very helpful information). But the DC in this case is being fed into an RF oscillator, which would seem to change the picture a bit, no?
If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.
When Paul was first working with the Shawyer resonator back in 2007, we went through the issues pretty carefully and found that indeed, when there is nothing inside the resonator, it cannot be using M-E physics since there needs to be a mass to fluctuate. Looks though, that they've left the empty resonator design behind since it doesn't work. Odd thing is, both Shawyer and his misunderstanding of "group velocity" and White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the stuff in?..
I think the mystery meat must be from Boeing. I'm betting what we haven't been hearing about are the results from Hector Serrano and his asymmetric dielectric capacitor thruster. Serrano had his stuff tested at Marshall twice over the years, and couldn't get a response from NASA despite some thrust. (They did however, file for patent on Serrano's design--scumbag NASA folks.) If Serrano eventually got picked up by Boeing, and Boeing sent what they had to Eagleworks, and Sonny was claiming his QVF model explains thrust from yet another thruster, that would explain why they're sticking dielectric inside all the designs.
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/07/2014 01:20 pmThe Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work.