Quote from: Flyby on 04/28/2016 02:22 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 04/28/2016 02:07 pmThis is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/That calmagorod-experiment has been posted inhere about 12-18 months ago on this forum.Was it posted by the inventor (Emidio Laureti) ? Any further info you can recall ?
Quote from: Monomorphic on 04/28/2016 02:07 pmThis is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/That calmagorod-experiment has been posted inhere about 12-18 months ago on this forum.
This is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/
I was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage. Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.
Quote from: Rodal on 04/28/2016 02:24 pmQuote from: Flyby on 04/28/2016 02:22 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 04/28/2016 02:07 pmThis is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/That calmagorod-experiment has been posted inhere about 12-18 months ago on this forum.Was it posted by the inventor (Emidio Laureti) ? Any further info you can recall ?make that 8 months.. not 12...http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414728#msg1414728and no it wasn't the inventor, but someone on Reddit that posted it and then it trickled down to here. I recall looking up some additional info and videos.It was in fact our current moderator that came up with it on NSF. It shows how hard it is to remember the massive amount of info that has passed by on this forum...
How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-timehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333v3.pdfWhat does it give mixed with some theories of the EM thruster? That is the question
Quote from: OttO on 04/28/2016 03:23 pmHow Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-timehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333v3.pdfWhat does it give mixed with some theories of the EM thruster? That is the question Sort of reminds me of Todd's paper, except it doesn't look like they employ the polarizable vacuum theory. What is common practice for discussing a paper behind a pay wall? Is it appropriate to quote, post new plots using the equations... where do you typically draw the line?
...2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing. Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:...Quote“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.
Quote from: Rodal on 04/28/2016 04:04 pm...2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing. Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:...Quote“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.You will be aware that, as reported by TT, Shawyer's story is that the program 'went black' after Yang announced results. That raises suspicions as a very convenient meme for Shawyer to voice, but nonetheless, one has to assume that 'black' programs do exist, and a verified EMDrive would be a decent candidate for one. If a program was 'black', I would expect any official spokesman to say anything they could to keep the program secret, including the above quotes. Therefore I don't think the quotes can invalidate Shawyer's claims, which are inherently difficult to disprove.Whether or not Boeing is working with Shawyer, someone was paying modest sums to SPR in its last financial year, ended March 31st 2015, and SPRs accounts are consistent with the termination of the Boeing relationship mid-2011 as Shawyer claims.Maybe someone with experience on black programs could comment (logically, I suppose probably not!). R.
FYIhttp://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3732.htmlQuoteDirect measurements of the extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force using a nano-cantileverM. Antognozzi, C. R. Bermingham, R. L. Harniman, S. Simpson, J. Senior, R. Hayward, H. Hoerber, M. R. Dennis, A. Y. Bekshaev, K. Y. Bliokh & F. NoriAffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authorsNature Physics (2016) doi:10.1038/nphys3732Received 24 June 2015 Accepted 14 March 2016 Published online 25 April 2016Article toolsCitationReprintsRights & permissionsArticle metricsRadiation pressure is associated with the momentum of light1, 2, and it plays a crucial role in a variety of physical systems3, 4, 5, 6. It is usually assumed that both the optical momentum and the radiation-pressure force are naturally aligned with the propagation direction of light, given by its wavevector. Here we report the direct observation of an extraordinary optical momentum and force directed perpendicular to the wavevector, and proportional to the optical spin (degree of circular polarization). Such an optical force was recently predicted for evanescent waves7 and other structured fields8. It can be associated with the ’spin-momentum’ part of the Poynting vector, introduced by Belinfante in field theory 75 years ago9, 10, 11. We measure this unusual transverse momentum using a femtonewton-resolution nano-cantilever immersed in an evanescent optical field above the total internal reflecting glass surface. Furthermore, the measured transverse force exhibits another polarization-dependent contribution determined by the imaginary part of the complex Poynting vector. By revealing new types of optical forces in structured fields, our findings revisit fundamental momentum properties of light and enrich optomechanics.https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.04248.pdf
Direct measurements of the extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force using a nano-cantileverM. Antognozzi, C. R. Bermingham, R. L. Harniman, S. Simpson, J. Senior, R. Hayward, H. Hoerber, M. R. Dennis, A. Y. Bekshaev, K. Y. Bliokh & F. NoriAffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authorsNature Physics (2016) doi:10.1038/nphys3732Received 24 June 2015 Accepted 14 March 2016 Published online 25 April 2016Article toolsCitationReprintsRights & permissionsArticle metricsRadiation pressure is associated with the momentum of light1, 2, and it plays a crucial role in a variety of physical systems3, 4, 5, 6. It is usually assumed that both the optical momentum and the radiation-pressure force are naturally aligned with the propagation direction of light, given by its wavevector. Here we report the direct observation of an extraordinary optical momentum and force directed perpendicular to the wavevector, and proportional to the optical spin (degree of circular polarization). Such an optical force was recently predicted for evanescent waves7 and other structured fields8. It can be associated with the ’spin-momentum’ part of the Poynting vector, introduced by Belinfante in field theory 75 years ago9, 10, 11. We measure this unusual transverse momentum using a femtonewton-resolution nano-cantilever immersed in an evanescent optical field above the total internal reflecting glass surface. Furthermore, the measured transverse force exhibits another polarization-dependent contribution determined by the imaginary part of the complex Poynting vector. By revealing new types of optical forces in structured fields, our findings revisit fundamental momentum properties of light and enrich optomechanics.
In conclusion we might say that, although one does not, and cannot, expect derivations at the freshman level to be uniformly rigorous, this case is of particular interest because the interaction of light with matter is of fundamental importance. Moreover, the explanations presented in textbooks and in the classroom are so seriously flawed that even students sometimes notice the difficulties. Rather than try to paper over these problems with what must be regarded as nonsensical arguments, the occasion would be better exploited to point out that physics is composed of a collection of models that are brought to bear in explaining physical phenomena, but that these models have limited domains of applicability and, as often as not, are inconsistent.
Quote from: CW on 04/26/2016 07:16 pmQuestion to the HF gurus:If spectral variation and sort of wandering bandwidths are a problem for reliable and stable mode shaping, then I wonder if there is a way to model and build a very narrow bandwidth 'pre-filter' wave guide that eats the poluted spectrum of an off-the-shelf magnetron and only then feeds the cleared narrow bandwidth spectrum with stable center frequency into an EM drive cavity?BRCWThat's exactly the idea behind the prefilter structure. The output of the filter will be several dB lower than the noisy magnetron source alone but with smaller BW.It works. It is standard technique.http://tinyurl.com/z7b4lamhttp://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.htmlhttp://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php
Question to the HF gurus:If spectral variation and sort of wandering bandwidths are a problem for reliable and stable mode shaping, then I wonder if there is a way to model and build a very narrow bandwidth 'pre-filter' wave guide that eats the poluted spectrum of an off-the-shelf magnetron and only then feeds the cleared narrow bandwidth spectrum with stable center frequency into an EM drive cavity?BRCW
Hello everybody,I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction. In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.
For example, the Airlander 10 was going to be (maybe still will be?) the world's biggest aircraft (part blimp, part plane, part helicopter) with Northrop Grumman . Developed in partnership with Northrop Grumman (NGC) as prime contractor, in 2009 it won a US$500 million US Army contract. Budget cuts at the US Army doomed the project and UK's HAV bought the airship, for practically nothing compared to the $500 million, and it is now on your side of the pond (is it going to go commercial ?). After all that money the Airlander did not go "dark" either, it just got terminated.
Quote from: Eusa on 04/29/2016 07:44 amI threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned. I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/29/2016 01:02 pmQuote from: Eusa on 04/29/2016 07:44 amI threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned. I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?This is a flattering request, but we need to resolve some issues before going ahead with this:1) The thread is presently titled "EM Drive", the thread name would have to be changed to "Q-Thrusters.""Q-Thrusters" is the set of all thrusters that can be explained by Dr. White's theory, but adopting such designation is tantamount to adopting Dr. White's theory.2) There appears to be confusion, that needs to be addressed:a) one would need to agree what devices belong where. At the moment there is disagreement for example on where to place Eusa's device, and where to place PNN F242. PNN says that they don't want their device to be listed among the Q-Thusters because their device is Non-Newtonian but they don't like the QV theory. There is not enough detailed information available to know exactly where would Dr. White place these devices that he did not test, like PNN F242 and whose engineering details have not been thoroughly disclosed.b) the set of Q-Thrusters is consistent with Dr. White's QV theory: any device that can be explained by the QV theory belongs there. It is not up to the inventor. For example, Shawyer explains his EM Drive by Maxwell and Newton's theories and rejects Dr. White's QV explanation. Shawyer's EM Drive is in the set of Q-Thrusters only because it meets Dr. White's definition, even though the inventor (Shawyer) disagrees that it should be there.So, to conclude, the picture of the set of Q-Thrusters represents only Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum explanation.Other explanations, for example Prof. Woodward's, would show other sets and subsets for propellant-less thrusters.
Quote from: Rodal on 04/29/2016 02:09 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/29/2016 01:02 pmQuote from: Eusa on 04/29/2016 07:44 amI threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned. I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?This is a flattering request, but we need to resolve some issues before going ahead with this:1) The thread is presently titled "EM Drive", the thread name would have to be changed to "Q-Thrusters.""Q-Thrusters" is the set of all thrusters that can be explained by Dr. White's theory, but adopting such designation is tantamount to adopting Dr. White's theory.2) There appears to be confusion, that needs to be addressed:a) one would need to agree what devices belong where. At the moment there is disagreement for example on where to place Eusa's device, and where to place PNN F242. PNN says that they don't want their device to be listed among the Q-Thusters because their device is Non-Newtonian but they don't like the QV theory. There is not enough detailed information available to know exactly where would Dr. White place these devices that he did not test, like PNN F242 and whose engineering details have not been thoroughly disclosed.b) the set of Q-Thrusters is consistent with Dr. White's QV theory: any device that can be explained by the QV theory belongs there. It is not up to the inventor. For example, Shawyer explains his EM Drive by Maxwell and Newton's theories and rejects Dr. White's QV explanation. Shawyer's EM Drive is in the set of Q-Thrusters only because it meets Dr. White's definition, even though the inventor (Shawyer) disagrees that it should be there.So, to conclude, the picture of the set of Q-Thrusters represents only Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum explanation.Other explanations, for example Prof. Woodward's, would show other sets and subsets for propellant-less thrusters.Good points. I think EMDrive is somewhat akin to "Q Tip", meaning emdrive is the common term for several RF based propellantless thrusters. In today's SEO (search engine optimization world, EMDrive is probably the way to go with our threads even though it might be a bit of a misnomer and carry some disagreement.My thought is to place emdrive within the bigger picture, which will certainly be evolving...but a good start for newbies to understand there are multiple theoretical designs to achieve propellantless propulsion.No problem, either way, but if our humble topic can help differentiate designs out there, was my thought...even though it will morph as we go along.
