Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1680136 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
...How a builder does it is truly up to them, but they should at least consider these points. ...
Shell
OK, but it is not up to the builder what the results of the experiment are, it is up to "Mother Nature" that rules the experimental outcome, not the builder (if the builder reports the true outcome of the experiments, of course).

Therefore, experiments conducted at institutions like universities, CERN, the Cambridge Electron Accelerator (MIT and Harvard), Fermilab, etc., the experimenters do discuss (in the scientific community) and design their experiments following our knowledge of the laws of nature.

If a "builder" were to design an experiment "up to them" without taking into account the laws of nature, then the builder should not be surprised if their results are not accepted by others. 

NASA's experiments stand out as a great example (and they are the reason why many viewers at NSF look at this thread: because NASA is conducting such experiments) because they reported their experiments with much more disclosure than Shawyer but also because Paul March was actively engaged at NSF in discussing their experiments: fully provided all dimensions and materials, thoroughly answered all questions and rather than being defensive about the NASA experiment or saying that it was up to their team what they did, carefully discussed and considered all theoretical and experimental arguments from NSF contributors. 
Paul March, addressed issues brought to him at NSF (rather than dismissing them), for example:

* the effect of the stainless steel chamber
* the effect of thermal buckling
* the effect of thermal expansion and tipping of the balance due to shifting of the center of mass
* the effect of different forms of damping (magnetic vs. oil)
* the effect of Lorentz forces
* the effect of air convection (eliminating it by conducting tests in vacuum)

Some experimental issues remain, but their attitude has not been defensive.  That's the way to get acceptance by the scientific community.   NASA has a review team and White's group methodically follows the agreed experimental recommendations.  Thus my confidence is with NASA: that NASA will finally arrive at a conclusion (positive or negative) regarding the usefulness for space propulsion of what is being investigated.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 04:50 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
...How a builder does it is truly up to them, but they should at least consider these points. ...
Shell
OK, but it is not up to the builder what the results of the experiment are, it is up to "Mother Nature" that rules the experimental outcome, not the builder (if the builder reports the true outcome of the experiments, of course).

Therefore, experiments conducted at institutions like universities, CERN, the Cambridge Electron Accelerator (MIT and Harvard), Fermilab, etc., the experimenters do discuss (in the scientific community) and design their experiments following our knowledge of the laws of nature.

If a "builder" were to design an experiment up to them" without taking into account the laws of nature, then the builder should not be surprised if their results are not accepted by others. 

NASA's experiments stand out as a great example (and they are the reason why many viewers at NSF look at this thread: because NASA is conducting such experiments) because they reported their experiments with much more disclosure than Shawyer but also because Paul March was actively engaged at NSF in discussing their experiments: fully provided all dimensions and materials, thoroughly answered all questions and rather than being defensive about the NASA experiment or saying that it was up to their team what they did, carefully discussed and considered all theoretical and experimental arguments from NSF contributors.  That's the way to get acceptance by the scientific community.
I stated first thing: These are points that are to be taken seriously in a build  considering the limits of a pocketbook funding.


Whether it's LIGO or CERN or MIT, FERMILAB they all have one thread in common Dr. Rodal and that's funding.

You bet I'd like to have a better lab table and another computer and waveguides I didn't have to build myself, but I'm limited just like the organizations you mentioned, by budget. I will do my best and even when this project was budgeted out I mentioned 20K in the gofundme as a basic goal to acquire what I felt was the basic lab to do the testing. I'm still only half way there. Sure I build my own waveguides and scrounge from my own piles of goodies and snipe deals on Ebay but that takes time and I'm not the only one who wants to see this project bear fruit.

Shell

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
...You bet I'd like to have a better lab table and another computer and waveguides I didn't have to build myself, but I'm limited just like the organizations you mentioned, by budget. ...
I was not referring to you, you have always been positive and welcoming of comments on your build  ;)

------
Concerning <<waveguides I didn't have to build myself>> and <<considering the limits of funding>>, I am involved in a project dealing with evanescent wave coupling (from a multilayer dielectric waveguide, which I plan to couple using prisms, grating is also under consideration) that may require several metal waveguides as well, most likely using TM polarization.  In the range of 2 GHz (or less) these waveguides list for several thousand dollars.

Do you have an actual comparison you can share of the performance of a home-built metal waveguide with the commercial waveguides?  I would also appreciate any comparison you may have of thinner waveguides with the commercial waveguide constructions, or data showing that a thinner waveguide can do just as well (*)

Thanks

_______

(*) The UberOverLord was also interested on this issue, based on his experience at the US Air Force
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 05:22 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
...You bet I'd like to have a better lab table and another computer and waveguides I didn't have to build myself, but I'm limited just like the organizations you mentioned, by budget. ...
I was not referring to you, you have always been positive and welcoming of comments on your build  ;)

------
Concerning <<waveguides I didn't have to build myself>> and <<considering the limits of funding>>, I am involved in a project dealing with evanescent wave coupling (from a multilayer dielectric waveguide, which I plan to couple using prisms, grating is also under consideration) that may require several metal waveguides as well, most likely using TM polarization.  In the range of 2 GHz (or less) these waveguides list for several thousand dollars.

Do you have an actual comparison you can share of the performance of a home-built metal waveguide with the commercial waveguides?  I would also appreciate any comparison you may have of thinner waveguides with the commercial waveguide constructions, or data showing that a thinner waveguide can do just as well (*)

Thanks

_______

(*) The UberOverLord also commented on this issue, based on his experience at the US Air Force
Thank YOU!


Honestly I used a OTS rectangular aluminum stock that I had to clean up quite a bit. It received a silver electroplating on top of that. I followed this template
http://www.wikarekare.org/Antenna/Waveguide.html but build a better quality guide. The lucky thing was the waveguide is right in the middle of the spectrum for the guide @ 2.45GHz.

I don't have any real specs to compare on the thinner walled guides vs what I built.
If I had my old shop back I'd make it from heavy copper O2 free stock and bend on the industrial bender. You could contact any local shops that have the capability to bend thick copper and send it out to be electroplated with Cu and flashed over with a gold finish. That would be about 1/4 of the cost vs a commercial.

Shell

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
MHT1003NR3 arrived. It is a little smaller than I expected. This little 3-pin RF LDMOSFET transistor can output 250 watts @ 2.45Ghz with 32v DC!

« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 07:16 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
...
Thank YOU!


Honestly I used a OTS rectangular aluminum stock that I had to clean up quite a bit. It received a silver electroplating on top of that. I followed this template
http://www.wikarekare.org/Antenna/Waveguide.html but build a better quality guide. The lucky thing was the waveguide is right in the middle of the spectrum for the guide @ 2.45GHz.

I don't have any real specs to compare on the thinner walled guides vs what I built.
If I had my old shop back I'd make it from heavy copper O2 free stock and bend on the industrial bender. You could contact any local shops that have the capability to bend thick copper and send it out to be electroplated with Cu and flashed over with a gold finish. That would be about 1/4 of the cost vs a commercial.

Shell

Thanks ! Much appreciated.  Love the fact that you even included the template and a cost comparison vs. commercial !

Just what I was looking for.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 06:38 pm by Rodal »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Great points.

Although relying on natural convection is not representative of operation in space, artificially incorporating forced convection to control the temperature is certainly an option. 

Superconducting EM Drive designs certainly need such forced convection cooling in order to achieve and maintain superconductivity (presently only achievable at temperatures below room temperature).

I would like to take up this opportunity and encourage builders to embrace the new 3D manufacturing technologies and design a frustum with embedded cooling channels in the metal walls. If the coolant were running in two separate channels with counter directed coolant flow, there should be no net angular momentum at any given point in time (I think).
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Great points.

Although relying on natural convection is not representative of operation in space, artificially incorporating forced convection to control the temperature is certainly an option. 

Superconducting EM Drive designs certainly need such forced convection cooling in order to achieve and maintain superconductivity (presently only achievable at temperatures below room temperature).

I would like to take up this opportunity and encourage builders to embrace the new 3D manufacturing technologies and design a frustum with embedded cooling channels in the metal walls. If the coolant were running in two separate channels with counter directed coolant flow, there should be no net angular momentum at any given point in time (I think).

NSF also had sporadic news from a University project in a Western province of Canada (I thought it was in Alberta, if my memory is correct) involving very large power input (much larger than what any EM Drive test has reported up to now).  The project did not involve a superconducting design. Due to the very large power input, forced cooling of the EM Drive was discussed and deemed necessary for the project.  It has been several weeks since we last heard anything concerning this EM Drive project.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 07:47 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Finishing starts on large diameter endplate. Lapping plate and Lapping wheel undersized but will have to do...

Offline MazonDel

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Worcester, MA
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 36
Great points.

Although relying on natural convection is not representative of operation in space, artificially incorporating forced convection to control the temperature is certainly an option. 

Superconducting EM Drive designs certainly need such forced convection cooling in order to achieve and maintain superconductivity (presently only achievable at temperatures below room temperature).

I would like to take up this opportunity and encourage builders to embrace the new 3D manufacturing technologies and design a frustum with embedded cooling channels in the metal walls. If the coolant were running in two separate channels with counter directed coolant flow, there should be no net angular momentum at any given point in time (I think).

I am quite willing to do the CAD work necessary for this, provided someone can provide me with the dimensions and further desires. Exactly what adjustments I might need to make to account for production method are dependent on how they want the device made.

One thing I was considering actually was the possibility of designing a sort of "jacket" that others could place their frustum in (slather the outside in some sort of thermal compound) and use to help cool it.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
I think a 3D printed shawyer-class frustum is beyond most DIY budgets. I can't imagine it costing less than $thousands.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 354
If the force is generated on the frustum walls (either on front/back plates or the side walls) it must come at the expense of the Q of the electromagnetic waves. Any (yet to be determined) interaction between the walls and the electromagnetic waves must come at the expense of the Q.

Exactly correct. The conversion of internal cavity energy to external kinetic energy is at the expense of reduced internal cavity energy & Q as this conversions adds to cavity Q losses.

No free lunches.

It is all detailed in Rogers papers.

I am fairly sure that a force in itself won't use up energy until the cavity actually begins to free accelerate by F.dx = Energy (if it does accelerate purely via light) .  This should be similar to two mirrors accelerated away from each other and the light between them red-shifts when the mirrors actually start to accelerate.  If the mirrors are held stationary and are perfectly reflective no red-shifting of the light between the mirrors should happen but a force will still be present.  (While the two systems [cavity or mirrors] are different, I am assuming if there were a force purely by the pressure of light inside the cavity that we could parallel between the two systems.)

On the other hand if the light is accelerating something other than the cavity as a propellant that passes through the walls then there is a chance of seeing Q or energy content drop even when the cavity isn't accelerating because the light is accelerating something else via F.dx=E . 

If there is some anomalous force the difference between these two scenarios might be a way to narrowing down where it is coming from.

As per attached.

Quote
Note that the reaction is either the acceleration a, or a force equal to Ma, but not both.

EmDrive Force Measurement:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

The EmDrive is not a rocket. It does not generate acceleration unless it is free to move. When constrained there is no external Force generated.

I think I am detecting some nonsense in this document.  It is claimed if the cavity impacts a wall and stops moving it stops generating a force.  I.e. when it is on a scale and not free to move no force is exerted.  However if the cavity is free to accelerate it will accelerate.  Ok well here is the problem.

Our cavity sits in an empty room and is free to roll and suddenly hits the wall of the room but the wall in the room absorbs the impact with out letting it bounce so now the cavity sits against the wall of the room.  The room now sits in empty space and is free to accelerate but since the cavity isn't free to move the room doesn't accelerate.  The problem here is if the cavity is ever going to be used to accelerate a space ship it must be attached in such a way to the ship that it can't move relative to the ship.  Now consider space ship earth which is a mass and is free to accelerate as well.  The cavity is always free to accelerate and therefore a force must be there and if the cavity is ever going to accelerate there must be a force. 

Quote from paper that doesn't sit right with me:
"Because the thruster is at rest, no force will be measured on the load cell.
i.e. F = T-R = 0

It therefore appears that a force measurement can only be made in a dynamic
environment, ideally by allowing the thruster to accelerate, measuring that
acceleration, and then calculating the thrust from T = -Ma."  page 3
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 09:25 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 354
EM propulsion study for USAF written in 1989 contains a lot about some of the theories and speculations similar to emdrive. 169 pages...5 D math...I suspect theory people will find this old paper interesting:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Ez9NDUxpYLZThJTy15TUdPVnM/view

This paper was an interesting read.  What caught my attention was the "Rotation of Magnets" on page D-3.  I did my thesis on this.  My conclusion was that the magnetic field can't rotate axially and for quite a few reasons but first we did an experimental test which came out negative for axial field rotation.  We rotated a magnet axially and put a capacitor axially around the magnet such that an EMF should have been induced in the capacitor and predicted what we should see. 

After the negative results "I expected to see the magnetic field rotate" I looked into it and found why it can not.  Some simple reasons are that information in free space doesn't travel in the direction "omega x r" or in circles but rather radially.  By rotating a magnet or changing a magnetic field the induction is actually radial though nature conspires to make it appear as if the induction can also occur by angular velocity but not beyond a maximum distance r in which the speed of light will be exceeded. 

Long story short a 3 phase coil can give the impression of a rotating magnetic field but the coils don't rotate.  Magnetars give off pulses and are considered to be giant magnet stars and the induction of them rotating should be radial with great distance. 

The main reason is to consider a single loop of wire in which current travels in a circle but the positive charges are stationary.  a moving observer moving beside the current loop will observe some negative charge to be moving faster (opposite direction) with respect to their frame than the charge that is moving with their frame.  The charge moving faster is slowed in time and charge tends to build up on that side of the loop.  This is small but the great power of the electric field and charge density makes the magnetic field one of the few phenomena where we observe relativity on a daily basis.  This relative velocity with respect to the current loop results in a dipole charge on the current loop because the positive charge is not rotating in a circle but the negative charge is.  For an infinitely long solenoid most of the magnetic field is contained inside because it is in reality a velocity dependent dipole electric potential. 

Many books make the error of trying to simulate the magnetic field lines as a dipole electric field but the magnetic field lines are actually a velocity dependent dipole electric potential.  The electric field line pass perpendicular to the potential lines.  The electric dipole rotates depending on the observers direction of velocity.  I thought it was pretty neat once I began to understand this.  I understood later that if I rotate the current loop axially in the lab frame and the magnetic field rotates axially also that this implies that the magnet would give every observer in the lab frame a relative velocity with respect to the current loop.  This relative velocity would require a lab-frame observer to undergo no acceleration and their relative velocity would increase with radial distance.  An axially rotating magnetic field implies in the lab-frame we could observe this dipole electric field and be moving faster with respect to some charges in the axially rotating current loop than others, which is nonsense, and my conclusion was the magnetic field can not axially rotate.  I have my doubts it rotates at all and I think induction is generally radial.  That is unless, the observer is the one rotating and not the magnet. 

After this I became interested in the radial induction of the phased arrays as a form of propulsion and eventually found my way here.  Later on the EM drive and then the Mach effect mentioned in this paper you posted.  I enjoy much of the great discussion and articles posted here and want to say thanks to everyone for their curiosity and sharing knowledge to weed through to see if any new form of propulsion may be possible. 

Thesis defense:
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 10:09 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but there appears to be a new Emdrive paper. Any thoughts?

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf

The paper is written by Arto Annila, a Professor in Physics at the University of Helsinki, Erkki Kolehmainen, a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Jyväskylä and Patrick Grahn, an engineer with a specialization in COSMOL Multiphysics at the University of Helsinki.

The abstract to the paper notes:

" Recent reports about propulsion without reaction mass have been met with disbelief. Closed metal cavities, when fueled with microwaves, have delivered thrust without any apparent exhaust. Thus the Law of Action-Reaction seems to have been violated. We consider the possibility that the exhaust is in a form that has so far escaped both experimental detection and theoretical attention. In the thruster’s cavity microwaves interfere with each other and invariably some photons will also end up co-propagating with opposite phases. At the destructive interference electromagnetic fields cancel. However, the photons themselves do not vanish for nothing but continue in propagation. These photon pairs without net electromagnetic field do not reflect back from the metal walls but escape from the resonator. By this action momentum is lost from the cavity which, according to the conservation of momentum, gives rise to an equal and opposite reaction. We examine theoretical corollaries and practical concerns that follow from the paired –photon conclusion."

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Large endplate of NSF-1701A complete  :P

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but there appears to be a new Emdrive paper. Any thoughts?

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf

The paper is written by Arto Annila, a Professor in Physics at the University of Helsinki, Erkki Kolehmainen, a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Jyväskylä and Patrick Grahn, an engineer with a specialization in COSMOL Multiphysics at the University of Helsinki.

The abstract to the paper notes:

" Recent reports about propulsion without reaction mass have been met with disbelief. Closed metal cavities, when fueled with microwaves, have delivered thrust without any apparent exhaust. Thus the Law of Action-Reaction seems to have been violated. We consider the possibility that the exhaust is in a form that has so far escaped both experimental detection and theoretical attention. In the thruster’s cavity microwaves interfere with each other and invariably some photons will also end up co-propagating with opposite phases. At the destructive interference electromagnetic fields cancel. However, the photons themselves do not vanish for nothing but continue in propagation. These photon pairs without net electromagnetic field do not reflect back from the metal walls but escape from the resonator. By this action momentum is lost from the cavity which, according to the conservation of momentum, gives rise to an equal and opposite reaction. We examine theoretical corollaries and practical concerns that follow from the paired –photon conclusion."

Thank you for this interesting paper, which I'm sure has never been discussed at NSF EM Drive thread previously.

My take: it would have been beneficial for the authors to read the NSF EM Drive threads, because early on we discussed that one of the most concerning claims about the EM Drive was not just the possible violation of conservation of momentum (which is dealt with in this paper by the hypothesis that some photons are able to escape) but that the claimed anomalous force/inputPower is orders of times greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

That's why in the compilation of experimental results wiki, we endeavored to compare all claimed results with the force/powerInput of a perfectly collimated photon rocket:   http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

This, the authors fail to do.  They claim that a few of the photons are able to escape the EM Drive.  Although there is no experimental proof of this, and no real physical-mathematical theory by which this can happen, the question still remains, of how could this result in a force/powerInput greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket  ???
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 01:26 am by Rodal »

Offline Amestad

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Newcaste, NSW
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Great points.

Although relying on natural convection is not representative of operation in space, artificially incorporating forced convection to control the temperature is certainly an option. 

Superconducting EM Drive designs certainly need such forced convection cooling in order to achieve and maintain superconductivity (presently only achievable at temperatures below room temperature).

I would like to take up this opportunity and encourage builders to embrace the new 3D manufacturing technologies and design a frustum with embedded cooling channels in the metal walls. If the coolant were running in two separate channels with counter directed coolant flow, there should be no net angular momentum at any given point in time (I think).

I am quite willing to do the CAD work necessary for this, provided someone can provide me with the dimensions and further desires. Exactly what adjustments I might need to make to account for production method are dependent on how they want the device made.

One thing I was considering actually was the possibility of designing a sort of "jacket" that others could place their frustum in (slather the outside in some sort of thermal compound) and use to help cool it.

I suggested an incredibly simple method for providing support for the frustum side walls and 'simultaneous  cooling method', just a few pages back..
See the attached image, or if it isn't working follow this link
http://i67.tinypic.com/ejc5r6.png

Cheers
Amestad

Shell
I bet you could do this.. bolt 2 equal sized plates to your endplates that are sized for the correct cylinder..

 
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 01:46 am by Amestad »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
Thank you for this interesting paper, which I'm sure has never been discussed at NSF EM Drive thread previously.

The authors seem to be claiming that because of destructive interference at the frustum-wall interface, photons are exiting the apparatus. My understanding is that when there is destructive interference, photons are directed back to the source.


« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 01:57 am by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Thank you for this interesting paper, which I'm sure has never been discussed at NSF EM Drive thread previously.

The authors seem to be claiming that because of destructive interference at the frustum-wall interface, photons are exiting the apparatus. My understanding is that when there is destructive interference, photons are directed back to the source.



Lovely to see Professor Ezekiel !

It feels like it was yesterday.  Brings back great memories I had at MIT.  His Laboratory was in the main corridor of the Aero & Asto department, so hardly a day went by without hearing or seeing him involved in experiments with students as one walked that corridor, connecting several MIT buildings   ;).  Unfortunately Professor Emeritus Shaoul “Ziggy” Ezekiel passed away one year ago (suffering from soft-tissue sarcoma cancer).  "Ziggy" (as he liked to be called, even as a full Professor) was also an MIT alumnus (where he received his doctorate in the 1960's) who spent 46 years at MIT as a professor in both the departments of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Course XVI, AeroAstro) and Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (Course VI, EECS).

He taught classes in dynamics, optics, laser fundamentals, basics of measurement systems, and optical sensors.
His research interests were in the fields of lasers and optics and their applications in atom-field interactions; ultra-high resolution spectroscopy; optical frequency/wavelength standards; and sensors, including optical/fiberoptical gyroscopes, magnetic field sensors, and spectroscopic sensors. He exploited nonlinear optical effects to create a variety of new sensors and optical devices, and novel high frequency sources.  He was universally liked by all students because of his friendliness, and his enthusiasm.  He was always upbeat and loved to discuss  experiments with optics and lasers.  We miss him !
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 02:48 am by Rodal »

Offline spupeng7

EM propulsion study for USAF written in 1989 contains a lot about some of the theories and speculations similar to emdrive. 169 pages...5 D math...I suspect theory people will find this old paper interesting:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Ez9NDUxpYLZThJTy15TUdPVnM/view

rfmwguy - thanks!! A breath of fresh air. Helps the thesis that I'm not mad to find one other person who thinks that we should be investigating the coupling between EM and gravitational fields. Or maybe just a cellmate...

Section 2.10 looks interesting, esp equation 271. Made me wonder whether FEKO could map E.Edot and E.CurlB across the frustrum.

I think equation 168 may speak to CW's thought on the variation of the rate of flow of time.

Interesting the remarks around equation 221!

R.

Unification, well I'm right with you there Rert. It all makes perfect sense if electric fields are in fact dilations of time same as gravity. You can put me in the cell next door...  JMN..
Optimism equals opportunity.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1