Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635159 times)

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 1579
Quote from: Augmentor link=topic=42978.msg1755624#msg1755624
Your mileage may be relativistic,

That's a 10 pointer!
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 01:31 am by Bob Woods »

Offline spupeng7

Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.

Maybe I should just have said that while the velocity of an observer may affect observation and measurement, it would have no affect on the temperature of anything outside the observer’s own frame of reference. For that matter it would not affect the way an observer, experiences or measures anything within their own frame of reference.

I think I must have been unclear in my intent… or confused the issue by attempting to suggest that how “a fast moving observer” experiences blackbody radiation (from an external frame), which might be affected by the observer’s relative velocity (or time dilation), could not affect the temperature of the source of the blackbody radiation.

When you said, ”Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero.  Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.”, I took it to suggest that time dilation of an observer might affect the temperature, basically of the universe! 

“Time dilation” of a fast moving observer only affects how the observer measures events outside the observer’s frame of reference. Within their own frame of reference the observer experiences no change… they would not even know “time dilation” is occurring, without an external frame of reference... Time dilation and velocity only affects measurements between frames. It does not actually change the temperatures, only experience and measurement.



Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
I think there has been a miscommunication here. OnlyMe was discussing black body radiation, which is continuous across all frequencies unlike atomic spectral lines. As temperature increases, black body radiation increases at all frequencies and the peak of the distribution shifts as well.

I believe that the Doppler shifted pattern will appear identical to the spectrum from a temperature shift, but since this depends on viewing angle, it does not define a new temperature for a moving object in another frame. This indicates that temperature is similar to rest mass in that as generally defined is meaningful in the rest frame. To really answer whether temperature is frame dependent many equations involving temperature may need to be reworked to remove implicit assumptions about the frame. There may be more than 1 right answer depending on how definitions are chosen.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
I think there has been a miscommunication here. OnlyMe was discussing black body radiation, which is continuous across all frequencies unlike atomic spectral lines. As temperature increases, black body radiation increases at all frequencies and the peak of the distribution shifts as well.

I believe that the Doppler shifted pattern will appear identical to the spectrum from a temperature shift, but since this depends on viewing angle, it does not define a new temperature for a moving object in another frame. This indicates that temperature is similar to rest mass in that as generally defined is meaningful in the rest frame. To really answer whether temperature is frame dependent many equations involving temperature may need to be reworked to remove implicit assumptions about the frame. There may be more than 1 right answer depending on how definitions are chosen.

To my knowledge, the temperature will cause the spectral lines to widen but they will not shift in the same way that would result from a Doppler shift due to motion between frames. It will increase the intensity, the number of photons emitted at each frequency. See below.

It is an interesting thought to treat heat as part of the rest mass. I will consider this further, thanks.

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.

It's very nice that Roger Shawyer has provided you references to antique measurement techniques.

SeaShells and Monomorphic, where are you? You've both apparently spent phenomenal quantities of time, labor, and money on hardware, experimentation, and even laboratory space.

Why have neither of you "thrown the switch" and reported results? Monomorphic apparently has a torsion pendulum that equals some of the best in the world, as regards sensitivity and repeatability, perhaps surpassing that used by NASA in their peer reviewed report.

Are you making measurements that you can't believe? Are you making measurements that you won't believe? Are you making measurements that violate your own expectations? Are you making measurements?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Don't know about SeaShells, but Monomorphic is posting in the Woodward's Effect thread. Looks like he's working on that now.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1754872#msg1754872

Offline racevedo88

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • us
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 243
Rq3

On a previous post monomorphic indicated that every once in a while he gets overwhelmed and likes to take a break, so it is very possible he is doing this know. Both shell and monomorphic are serious researchers and if they had thrown the switch they would have reported their results regardless of wether the drive worked or not.  It might not be what you meant, but the way you asked the last question,makes it seem that you are questioning their integrity. In the 3 years I had followed this thread, I have found that both of them had been extremellly open in sharing their experimental processes and findings.


Offline spupeng7

Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.

It's very nice that Roger Shawyer has provided you references to antique measurement techniques.
(...)

Also recommended by Roger Shawyer;  'Microwave Engineering Passive Circuits.' by Peter A Rizzi, Published by Prentice Hall.

Good engineering practice is confirmed by test of time. If there are better ways you are welcome to share them here  :)
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.





This has lead me to look more closely at "electrical hum" as a possible error source for some emdrive experiments. Most, if not all, RF amplifiers emit an audible hum when pushed at max RF power. In fact, my first 2W system produced a distinct hum that I would estimate was in the <100Hz range. As I run the new amplifier at ~80% capacity and use only 12.6V or less, that seems to have eliminated the electrical hum (from what I can hear). This is also why I am very interested in the US Navy's contactless RF connection and Peter Lauwer's method. I do not think Shawyer's frictionless air track is vulnerable to the same reaction problem as a torsional pendulum, as it can show an acceleration curve over a certain distance.  However, air tracks can be tricked in other ways.

I have one more series of tests to conduct using the asymmetric shaker, which includes a number of frequencies in sine, square, and sawtooth waveform - as well as some chirps. Once that is finished in the next few days, I will switch back over to the emdrive and resume testing there. But while the emdrive is sitting on the workbench, I would like to record a video to show how the cavity tuning system works as I think that's pretty neat.

Sorry for the delay, but it has been a fun diversion and the data collected will be useful.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2017 09:55 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469

Also recommended by Roger Shawyer;  'Microwave Engineering Passive Circuits.' by Peter A Rizzi, Published by Prentice Hall.


Also recommended by me! It was used as textbook at the TU Delft in the 90s.  :-)
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
I originally posted this in the Woodward effect thread but it seemed highly connected to this thread. 

Something related to WarpTech's equations above

...

Thanks WarpTech

I suspect I may have connected the dots that describe how the EM drive is related to the Woodward effect.  The magnetic field at the tip of the frustum, being up, is of greater magnitude than the magnetic field at the lower portion of the frustum, down.  There is a dynamic effect that occurs when this happens.  The magnetic fields in the EM drive when created may initially be at equilibrium but as energy rapidly builds in the frustum the equilibrium may shift to compress the magnetic field below as in the crushing of a spring. 
...
Dustinthewind,

Warptech  is headed in the right direction. Compare his equation on acceleration and change in acceleration to Woodward's. As to QVF, that is beyond the scope of Woodward's GR derivation. Quantum Mach Effects (QME) are considered at this point to be "minuscule". Even so, QME is worth exploring theoretically.

The Mach Effect experimental device families (MET,  MEGA)  have asymmetric masses with a forced damped oscillator. Once resonance has been established, then timed electrical pulses add dielectric energy  resulting in expansion of the material (PZT et al). GR Mach Effects (GRME) occur when a internal acceleration occurs collinearly within an external acceleration; GRME can also occur for a system at velocity (momentum) and an external change in force (jerk) is applied. This can be seen in both Woodward's derivation as well as Warptech's approach.

ref: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/stargates.pdf

Woodward derives in a paper preceding his book, MSAS-2013, a formula of the form...

F = A a^2 + B j v 

where v is velocity, a is acceleration and j is the change in acceleration (jerk).
F has units kg-m/sec^2   and  a^2 and jv have units of m^2/sec^4

A and B are constants. So A and B have units of kg-sec^2/m

This formula applies to straight-line free travel in flat space. One should consider time dependencies of m, v, a and j as well the additional challenges of the orbital mechanics of a flyby and traveling along gravitational geodesics.

For applied Mach theory, you may also need to perform relativistic corrections for doppler effect and heat conduction among other things. IMHO the emDrive propulsion may be due in part to relativistic heat conduction.

Since Woodward derives Mach theory from General Relativity, consider four-vector implications.

Warptech does introduce four gradient. However, a comprehensive review of all four-vector physics is required eventually. From Wiki "Four vector", here is a nice checklist in the form of table of contents.

4   Fundamental four-vectors
   4.1   Four-position
   4.2   Four-gradient
5   Kinematics
   5.1   Four-velocity
   5.2   Four-acceleration
6   Dynamics
   6.1   Four-momentum
   6.2   Four-force
7   Thermodynamics
   7.1   Four-heat flux
   7.2   Four-baryon number flux
   7.3   Four-entropy
8   Electromagnetism
   8.1   Four-current
   8.2   Four-potential
9   Waves
   9.1   Four-frequency
   9.2   Four-wavevector
10   Quantum theory
   10.1   Four-probability current
   10.2   Four-spin
11   Other formulations
   11.1   Four-vectors in the algebra of physical space
   11.2   Four-vectors in spacetime algebra

The rocket equation derivation I will need to examine closer. One would have to relate Q to the rocket equation to make sense of what Warptech is proposing.

You mileage may be relativistic,

David

Thanks Augmentor for the extra information - Ill take a peek.  I wasn't implying WarpTech was on the wrong track or right.  I was just thanking him as his suggestion spurred me to think about any asymmetric accelerations causing change in mass of charge in the cavity.  It struck me that the cavity may mimic such an effect.  Basically the cavity would be the larger mass and the electrons in a TE mode (maybe some other mode) would be the lighter mass. 

As energy rapidly builds up it may be possible the magnetic field at the tip of the frustum acts like a spring that grows in its spring constant more rapidly than the field below it.  This would compress the magnetic field below it as energy builds up in the cavity. 

This rapid compression of the field below corresponds to a shift in the current of the cavity walls (metal skin current compresses the magnetic fields to remain in the cavity).  I was pondering if it could shove the current (field) toward the large end in the process with large accelerations.  After energy input stops the Q (quality) of the cavity, or the low resistance to current, allows the energy to dissipate gradually.  This would then allow the newly created magnetic fields to gradually die out and un-compress. 

The asymmetric magnetic fields causing a dynamic effect, and the difference in the rate of input power to power dissipation being asymmetric, leading to unequal accelerations of the charge back and forth. 

This might possibly go back to everyone before me that was saying to ring it like a bell because this is exactly what would be happening.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 03:14 am by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 1
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.





This has lead me to look more closely at "electrical hum" as a possible error source for some emdrive experiments. Most, if not all, RF amplifiers emit an audible hum when pushed at max RF power. In fact, my first 2W system produced a distinct hum that I would estimate was in the <100Hz range. As I run the new amplifier at ~80% capacity and use only 12.6V or less, that seems to have eliminated the electrical hum (from what I can hear). This is also why I am very interested in the US Navy's contactless RF connection and Peter Lauwer's method. I do not think Shawyer's frictionless air track is vulnerable to the same reaction problem as a torsional pendulum, as it can show an acceleration curve over a certain distance.  However, air tracks can be tricked in other ways.

I have one more series of tests to conduct using the asymmetric shaker, which includes a number of frequencies in sine, square, and sawtooth waveform - as well as some chirps. Once that is finished in the next few days, I will switch back over to the emdrive and resume testing there. But while the emdrive is sitting on the workbench, I would like to record a video to show how the cavity tuning system works as I think that's pretty neat.

Sorry for the delay, but it has been a fun diversion and the data collected will be useful.
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

Offline Slyver

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • CA
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 294
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.
Monomorphic, you're my hero. Seriously.

EMDrive testing is in great hands!

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.
...

Excellent work, Jamie.
I remember George Gillies treated this effect in one of his articles on torsion balances in the 90's (continuous deflection due to vibrations). Been looking in my archive, I don't know whether this one is the best treatment of it: Gillies & Ritter, Torsion balances, torsion pendulums, and related devices, Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol. 64, 1993, pp. 283-309.
I'll dig deeper into the (paper) archive.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 01:17 pm by Peter Lauwer »
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.

Monomorphic started his experiment with an air suspension rail. There were reasons why it was not good.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
Has someone information about; when videos and proceedings of the conference from november this year will be available here or at ssi.org?
I'm just curious about it.

Thanks
« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 09:17 pm by X_RaY »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2211
  • Likes Given: 662
Has someone information about; when videos and proceedings of the conference from november this year will be available here or at ssi.org?
I'm just curious about it.

Thanks

As soon as our volunteer staff can edit everything into a useable format.  I'll check with them and see if there is a target date.  I do know that formal papers will be published by JBIS in an issue early next year but don't have specific timing.

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 1807
Does anyone remember the recommended platform for testing ion drives.  I think the Cannae folks had built one.  Essentially it was a turntable in a reasonably sized vacuum chamber but can’t remember what the bearing was for that set up.  There may be a public NASA doc giving the specs. 

Monomorphic would those new bearings you purchased be more immune to this effect!  Thanks!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0