Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 08:46 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/10/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 07:14 pmI'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here ) interface using monickers and not face to face. It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's. Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's. So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication. It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.Q is such a tough one and at least it came out there is no real standard. This is why I didn't post my Q, it's so open for debate and in the real world testing this device, it is, what it will be. (hopefully >2)ShellShell, you know shat "Specsmanship" is, right? Think of Q that way...people can define it differently to show as high a number as they want. "The bigger the Q, the better it is" type attitude. As Doc said, who knows if Q is even a relavent number...it contains no measurement, only a ratio. It is relative to common industrial standards, unfortunately not across all disciplines.
Quote from: Rodal on 07/10/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 07:14 pmI'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here ) interface using monickers and not face to face. It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's. Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's. So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication. It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.Q is such a tough one and at least it came out there is no real standard. This is why I didn't post my Q, it's so open for debate and in the real world testing this device, it is, what it will be. (hopefully >2)Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 07:14 pmI'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here ) interface using monickers and not face to face. It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's. Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's. So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication. It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.
I'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants. ...
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.ToddI would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied. Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.ToddI would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied. Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.Todd
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
...
Quote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:14 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.ToddI would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied. Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.ToddWell Todd, it is news to me that a moving battery is aware of its "absolute velocity". This is totally new physics Perhaps you could consider starting a company which used a battery as an absolute speed indicator? It would be fabulous for space missions.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 09:21 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:14 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm......Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all....Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source. Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of 3.6*109 Joules. WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.ToddI would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied. Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.ToddWell Todd, it is news to me that a moving battery is aware of its "absolute velocity". This is totally new physics Perhaps you could consider starting a company which used a battery as an absolute speed indicator? It would be fabulous for space missions.Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 09:17 pmMy Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.The problem here, in reporting Q's (as made apparent by Yang, who clearly discussed this in one of her papers, as first brought up to the surface by zen-in (hat-tip) is not so much in how a scientific calculation of Q should be done, but it is in the arbitrary selection of how to establish the zero dB reference plane for an S11 plot, (how to measure the S11 VNA return loss). Yang was obtaining a Q of 1500 (hat-tip to zen-in) if one calculates her Q according to 3db half-power bandwidth (which is in itself an arbitrary value for a bandwidth) but it was a wildly different reported Q's on her tables in her same paper because as she discussed in her paper she established the zero dB reference plane on a very different basis as done by NASA (from what I recall).
My Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.Todd
Blessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).
Quote from: Rodal on 07/10/2015 09:43 pmBlessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).Are you saying to me in subtext that you will brook no criticism of Todd's theory because it demotivates him?I sincerely hope that you are not, for that is not how we do science.
Someone has the first 3 resonance frequencys of cavity with flat ends, and the frequency of the microwave source?Thanks.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:27 pm...Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something. Two batteries in two inertial frames with nonzero relative velocity should have identical physics. If you contradict that, then you contradict relativity. Which you are doing.
...Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:25 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.ToddI'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.Shell
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 09:17 pmMy Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.The problem here, in reporting Q's (as made apparent by Yang, who clearly discussed this in one of her papers, as first brought up to the surface by zen-in (hat-tip) is not so much in how a scientific calculation of Q should be done, but it is in the arbitrary selection of how to establish the zero dB reference plane for an S11 plot, (how to measure the S11 VNA return loss). Yang was obtaining a Q of 1500 (hat-tip to zen-in) if one calculates her Q according to 3db half-power bandwidth (which is in itself an arbitrary value for a bandwidth) but the reported Q's on her tables in her same paper were wildly higher because as she discussed in her paper she established the zero dB reference plane on a very different basis as done by NASA (from what I recall), resulting in huge magnification of reported Q.