.....Oh, and just for clarity, I have measured the forces outside the fully enclosed cavity shown first above. The forces are identically zero for the fully enclosed cavity as has been proven mathematically time and again.
PS: I see a smiling face on that picture, with two eyes at the upper corners of the big diameter flat end of the EM Drive and a mouth at the bottom of the EM Drive
Do the evanescent waves decay exponentially outside the EM Drive (as any evanescent wave should) ?
QuotePS: I see a smiling face on that picture, with two eyes at the upper corners of the big diameter flat end of the EM Drive and a mouth at the bottom of the EM Drive I have looked through all of the 34 images generated, one each half period. There are several that stimulate the imagination.QuoteDo the evanescent waves decay exponentially outside the EM Drive (as any evanescent wave should) ?Yes, they do, or at least the forces do decay. Whether exponentially or by some other rule, they do decay.I am suggesting that the EM thruster generates thrust force as follows:1 - Electromagnetic energy departs the cavity via superluminal evanescent waves. See the paper that I quoted previously for justification of superluminal evanescent waves.2 - The evanescent waves remain attached to the cavity (they do not propagate) and reach a maximum distance at which point they collapse and the energy returns to the cavity, either at the point of exit or some other attachment point. I think this is reasonably well accepted by theory.3 - The evanescent waves, departing the cavity carried superluminal momentum which was reacted against the cavity. However, once the waves reach maximum distance and return to the cavity, there is no driving energy to cause them to return superluminally. Once the wave has fully collapsed, it has returned momentum p = m c, to the cavity, acting on the cavity.It is the difference between p = m vsl reacting on the cavity, and p = m c acting on the cavity that results in a thrust force from the EM thruster.This force is easy to calculate, it is p = m * ( vsl - c). What is harder to calculate is the value of vsl but the referenced paper gives formulas to calculate that value based on engineering parameters.
....This force is easy to calculate, it is p = m * ( vsl - c). What is harder to calculate is the value of vsl but the referenced paper gives formulas to calculate that value based on engineering parameters.
Quote from: aero on 02/11/2015 10:03 pm....This force is easy to calculate, it is p = m * ( vsl - c). What is harder to calculate is the value of vsl but the referenced paper gives formulas to calculate that value based on engineering parameters.Well (skipping the controversial subject of a superluminal speed vsl and the discussion in the referenced paper involving tachyons), just addressing the force, as you know p is the momentum, while the force is the rate at which momentum changes with respect to time (F = dp/dt) : therefore the average force would be given by that momentum change divided by the time interval in which that momentum change takes place.
Can you please show results for force on the center of mass of the EM Drive and evanescent-wave images (showing the electromagnetic fields inside and outside the EM Drive) for the same case without the dielectric (for an empty cavity) ?
QuoteCan you please show results for force on the center of mass of the EM Drive and evanescent-wave images (showing the electromagnetic fields inside and outside the EM Drive) for the same case without the dielectric (for an empty cavity) ?I can try. The run will take several hours and may not give useful images. As you know from our discussions of a few days (weeks) ago, Harminv does not calculate resonant frequency very accurately. (I did get independent confirmation on that point.) So my best guess will be to use the same drive frequency as before?? That is what I used for yesterday's image but that data was from Paul March and seems to be pretty solid. In that case, Harminv calculated Q = O(1000) , much lower that Paul's data, but by looking at the images each half- period, the cavity looked to be in resonance. I don't know what I'll see without the dielectric and I am assuming you'd like to see results for a vacuum filled cavity? As opposed to air filled?I'm pursuing a work-around to determine resonance without using Harminv, but I'm not there yet. It will be a little while before I set-up and start the run so if you have further guidance, it might be helpful.Edit: Just a further note, the difference between air filled and vacuum filled cavity is not really detectable from looking at the field patterns.
Quickly plugged in those measurements. Used TM212, geometric mean. Needed effective n=1.38 to get the freq w/ dielectric. Q is down to 1000 for 50mmN at 50W.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/08/2015 02:02 amQuickly plugged in those measurements. Used TM212, geometric mean. Needed effective n=1.38 to get the freq w/ dielectric. Q is down to 1000 for 50mmN at 50W.@ RODALIs that Q estimate from the last run (vacuum) relevant ?
That is what I used for yesterday's image but that data was from Paul March and seems to be pretty solid. In that case, Harminv calculated Q = O(1000) , much lower that Paul's data, but by looking at the images each half- period, the cavity looked to be in resonance.
Actually, my concern is that the resonance frequency calculated by Harminv is as much as 3% off the peak.
Guys.I'm reluctant to say this, but maybe some of the previous posts would be better of as PM's to each other?I follow this thread avidly and I don't want to see it shut down again.Maybe have a think?
I mentioned earlier that I had obtained independent confirmation of the Harminv discrepancy. Dr. Filip Dominic made some runs sampling the cylindrical resonator fields from meep, then analysed them using software independent of the meep package. He worked on it for about a week and determined that the Harminv values were off. They come closer as resolution is increased but my computer won't run this model at the high resolution needed to get closer. Dr. Dominic sent me the software that he developed to do the analysis and that is part of my work around so I hope to have confidence in the resonance frequency. The only real problem I have is that his software is in Python, a language that I will need to practice with before I can have any certainty.
Quote from: SleeperService on 02/12/2015 07:30 pmGuys.I'm reluctant to say this, but maybe some of the previous posts would be better of as PM's to each other?I follow this thread avidly and I don't want to see it shut down again.Maybe have a think?I'm not so sure that we shouldn't just let them go with this. The math has gone way beyond me now, but it's fascinating watching science evolve right in front of us.When you combine what's being learned here with Dark Matter and Dark energy theory, it begins to look like there may actually be something to the old Ether Theory.At least that's what it's starting to sound like.
...@RodalIn awe about the stuff discussed so far. I retract... It is good to hear you peeps discussing and arguing in the open.
Quote from: SleeperService on 02/12/2015 07:30 pmGuys.I'm reluctant to say this, but maybe some of the previous posts would be better of as PM's to each other?I follow this thread avidly and I don't want to see it shut down again.Maybe have a think?I'm not so sure that we shouldn't just let them go with this. The math has gone way beyond me now, but it's fascinating watching science evolve right in front of us.
3 - The evanescent waves, departing the cavity carried superluminal momentum which was reacted against the cavity. However, once the waves reach maximum distance and return to the cavity, there is no driving energy to cause them to return superluminally. Once the wave has fully collapsed, it has returned momentum p = m c, to the cavity, acting on the cavity.It is the difference between p = m vsl reacting on the cavity, and p = m c acting on the cavity that results in a thrust force from the EM thruster.