NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: D_Dom on 08/19/2016 04:07 pm
-
This is a thread - Thread 8 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.
Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome. Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people. As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged. Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.
Commercial advertisement is discouraged.
In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)
This link
http://math.typeit.org/
enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.
--
Links to previous threads:
Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0
Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0
Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0
Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0
Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0
Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0
Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0
--
Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0
Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:
http://emdrive.wiki
http://rfdriven.com
Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 3.5 million thread reads and 850,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.
Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
-
Monomorphic. Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point? I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort. This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.
Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.
-
FWIW, emdrives.com currently redirects to the latest post in the latest page in this thread 8.
-
Monomorphic. Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point? I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort. This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.
Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.
This would require significant changes to the current rig to accomplish. Also, the 3-axis accelerometer (748um/s2) isn't as sensitive as the Laser Displacement Sensors (3um). To put that into perspective, during some of my tests, which ran powered for up to a minute, the pendulum only moved a total of 750um (0.75mm). The primary purpose of the 3-axis multi-sensor is calibrating the torsional pendulum beam using the compass and gyroscope.
-
Monomorphic, I don't have the funds or the know how to build a test rig. Once you are finished with your rig and testing, will you be open to testing other builds for a $ fee or other?
Do you yet know what the sensitivity and specificity is of/for your rig? Will you be building a cylindrical frustum to check for artifact et al., or? FL
-
Monomorphic, I don't have the funds or the know how to build a test rig. Once you are finished with your rig and testing, will you be open to testing other builds for a $ fee or other?
Do you yet know what the sensitivity and specificity is of/for your rig? Will you be building a cylindrical frustum to check for artifact et al., or? FL
Yes, I would be willing to test other's DIY emdrive builds. I made sure that the DUT can be "hot swapped" with relative ease. Though it would probably be best to wait until we have reliable/tunable 250W solid state RF. It's really hit and miss with the magnetron mounted to the emdrive. I'm not sure I would be confident enough with those results to do open testing.
As for sensitivity, I am positive I can achieve better than 10uN, maybe even in the realm of ~2uN.
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
-
I do believe the EM drive is functional. Concidering the possibility of potentially charged particles around the sun causing the "heat ring" I think there is something in space. If it can be polarized it has mass, if it has mass, it can produce thrust. I believe the EM drive may be utilizing particles in space, however dense, to produce thrust.
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.
PLUS an automatic lowest VSWR freq tracker.
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.
Workin on it...
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.
Workin on it...
I can share a SPR verified TE013 spherical end plates design.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
-
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.
Workin on it...
I can share a SPR verified TE013 spherical end plates design.
Email me the dimensions and i'll create a 3d mesh that can be used for rapid prototyping.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
This paper has been discussed here in depth and it has problems. Namely, the amount of thrust predicted by this theory is far below what is being detected in experiments. Another problem is that I was taught that photons that destructively interfere return to the source, not pass through solid metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRi4dv9KgCg
-
Monomorphic. Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point? I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort. This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.
Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.
This would require significant changes to the current rig to accomplish. Also, the 3-axis accelerometer (748um/s2) isn't as sensitive as the Laser Displacement Sensors (3um). To put that into perspective, during some of my tests, which ran powered for up to a minute, the pendulum only moved a total of 750um (0.75mm). The primary purpose of the 3-axis multi-sensor is calibrating the torsional pendulum beam using the compass and gyroscope.
I like your measurement device. I think you could increase the sensitivity if you use the swing method. I think basically you just remove much of the damping on the pendulum, find the resonant frequency of the pendulum/thruster, and synch your thrust to constructively add to that freuquency. The maximum amplitude of displacement is a function of the energy stored in the pendulum system over time, so any thrust there will be energy stored in the system till the energy lost to heat matches the energy going into the system. Minimizing the energy lost to heat in the form of damping make it more of a battery for stored energy and is why I suggested removing the damping fluid.
Any DC components such as (DC heat) or constant DC magnetic/electric fields are eliminated from measurements with such a system. Measurement would be of the two maximum displacements peaks from its osculation. I posted the solution for maximum displacement a while back and can look it up if needed. It was for a unidirectional sinusoidal force being applied to the pendulum.
I'll look up the previous post, here it is:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558493#msg1558493
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
What I can tell you is there is a red shift of the internal EmDrive EM waves as they transfer momentum to the accelerating EmDrive. So momentum is conserved.
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
What I can tell you is there is a red shift of the internal EmDrive EM waves as they transfer momentum to the accelerating EmDrive. So momentum is conserved.
If the red shift is only between the light and cavity then momentum isn't conserved. That is light created in the cavity should have zero average momentum. For that light to become heavier at one end would lead to a violation of conservation of momentum unless that light is becoming heavier at the one end because of a change in the index of the quantum vacuum.
If the quantum vacuum changes in index then it would still conserve momentum I think. Measurements have been done in water where it appears light becomes heavier and imparts more energy to a reflector and has been measured the back reaction on the water. If the light is inducing a back reaction on the quantum vacuum then its possible we can still conserve momentum but that means even if the cavity isn't accelerating there will be a red shift because the cavity is accelerating the quantum vacuum.
If the interaction is just between the light and the cavity then I don't see how if the cavity isn't accelerating that the light could lose energy but then I don't see how that kind of interaction could conserve momentum.
Of the two choices, the cavity accelerating the quantum vacuum seems more plausible (if it can be shown to actually work).
-
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...
A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.
So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what? Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential ?
Marcel,
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
I am not sure what you mean by "rate of time." Assuming you mean the time dilation effect in special and general relativity, then your statements do not make sense. The faster something is moving then the larger the time dilation effect. Your hypothesis would then result in things accelerating without bound. Also, the time dilation in a gravitational well is part of gravity. This doesn't explain any of the other fundamental forces.
Also the exhaust requirement is really a requirement that momentum exchange with something. Rockets push their exhaust backwards to accelerate. When falling, you are also pulling the earth upwards to accelerate downwards. Same requirement remains in place, you just don't notice the earth accelerating, since it is absurdly massive.
-
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...
A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.
So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what? Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential ?
Marcel,
I can't say this for sure but I suspected a connection to EM simulations of the EM drive. The modeled wave form in the cavity appears to have longer wavelengths at one end of the cavity than the other. In order for the simulations to stretch the wavelength in the cavity there must be something in the Maxwell equations that is doing this.
I was supposing there was something happening where the simulations of the wavelength of the light in the cavity being stretched corresponded to the light becoming heavier/slowing in time (osculation). The question was could this effect in the cavity have an effect on the quantum vacuum?
(They suspect the quantum vacuum as accelerating near the earth)
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH?
The downward acceleration of the quantum vacuum is responsible for the Einstein Equivalence Principle and also for 4D Space-Time Curvature
Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029
and
(The paper below they show measurements of increased impulse from light in a medium and a back reaction on the medium)
Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium
Mikko Partanen, Teppo Häyrynen, Jani Oksanen, Jukka Tulkki
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07224
-
Traveller, generally speaking, what would you say the difference is in Q between spherical and flat surfaced frustums. I have a Q of right around 19,000 in my current "flat surface" TE012 2.45 GHz design....how much (approximate) increase in Q do you think might I see were I to go spherical? Thanks FL
-
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...
A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.
So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what? Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential?
Marcel,
-
We've come across 'rate of time' before. It's a different perspective on things, but if you take the weak field Newtonian limit of GR, the only piece you need to create Gravity is a spatially non-uniform time dilation of the right form. By the same token, any non-uniform time dilation creates a gravity-like force. Interestingly the non-uniformity is tiny to create the earth's gravitational field. The time dilation effect is about 1 part in 10^-9 at earth's surface, changing at 1 part in 6 x 10^6 per metre, creating 1 g of acceleration with changes in the 'rate of time' of only about 10^-16 per metre. 10^-3 g would be fantastic for an Emdrive, so 1 part in 10^-19 would do the job. Feels like time is very 'stiff'!
The tiny little 64 trillion dollar question then becomes how to engineer a non-uniform time dilation...
I don't really get how this is the foundation of all forces though.
-
Dustinthewind: Yes. I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process. But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....
Meberbs: We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved. ....”Things accelerating without bound”: I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?
RERT: Right! Small time rate differential ..Big motion! Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time. I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.
I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.
Marcel,
-
Dustinthewind: Yes. I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process. But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....
Meberbs: We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved. ....”Things accelerating without bound”: I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?
RERT: Right! Small time rate differential ..Big motion! Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time. I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.
I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.
Marcel,
I think you guys are on the right track here. You asked how to create a time dilation field. Here is the math...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
Based on this, the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.
Todd
-
...the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.
"What we're doing is the extreme case of nonlinear optics, where the light and matter are coupled so strongly that we don't have light and matter anymore. We have something in between, called a polariton."
"What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."
~http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html)
Any similarities and/or correlations with your theory? Zero-Point Energy resonantly exciting electrons in a cavity making those electrons behave as a single gigantic atom? Perhaps the polaritons could be creating more focused asymmetrical power fluctuations in the copper?
The researches claim that they're achieving coupling of vacuum Rabi splitting as large as 10 percent of the photon energy. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but 10% sounds like pretty strong coupling to me!
-
Dustinthewind: Yes. I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process. But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....
Meberbs: We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved. ....”Things accelerating without bound”: I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?
RERT: Right! Small time rate differential ..Big motion! Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time. I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.
I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.
Marcel,
Your 1/T reference reminded me of this papper here: The Fundamental Physics of Electromagnetic Waves
Juliana H. J. Mortenson General Resonance, LLC USA paper link (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7498212624230893803&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14) which you might find interesting but not sure it really contributes.
After reading your paper I really feel what your looking for is that the quantum vacuum is anti-matter and matter combined. That would give it the polarizable vacuum effect. The leap I am making in that statement is that anti-mater if a form of anti-time. I was thinking and it seems as if the PV matter/anti-matter vacuum could be polarized by the presence of matter in space. That is anti-matter being attracted to matter might be attracted to large bodies of matter? This could polarize the vacuum and if anti-mater is a form of anti time then this would slow the time in the vicinity of the matter. I wonder if it would be with a gradient of 1/r^2. That is matter would osculate with a positive time frequency and anti-matter would osculate with an anti-time frequency. This polarization of the vacuum would then reduce the energy level in the large gravitational well and displace a percentage of the matter of the large body to a cloud surrounding the body which would be the field. Does this work or am I mistaken?
Also with special relativity a ship that accelerates become flattened by realativity. In front of the direction/velcocity it is traveling you subtract time and it contracts in front while you add time to the velocity behind also causing contraction. If for some reason the ship accelerating causes a polarization in the quantum vacuum and anti-matter is pulled with it then maybe a wave is following the ship that is made of anti-matter and matter. In front of the ship is the wave of anti-matter slowing time in front and behind the ship is the wave of matter speeding up time behind. So in essence the polarization of anti-matter/matter would be responsible for gradients in time, length contractions, and gravity.
Also the light you mentioned where the electric field points toward fast time to slow time (or maybe that is reversed) is similar in that maybe the light is the polarization of this matter/anti-matter which also causes a gradient in time. It also seems to possibly match up with electro-magnetism when you think what ever they are they are oppositely charged so can also make the necessary magnetic fields.
This also explains why when we collide particles we see both anti-matter and matter form.
I thought it was an intriguing line of thought and maybe it could have implications to better understanding the QV and if we can truly manipulate it.
-
Dustinthewind: Thanks for the Juliana ref. I said nothing about anti-matter or anti-time. The main point is that there is a spontaneous dynamic oscillation between something and nothing that allows something to exist from nothingness by avoiding the primitive rule of non-contradiction. So, this time process is everything, in simple form is the vacuum, or in complex structure is matter and waves. The real take away is the interface between science and this metaphysics as the nature the electric and magnetic fields.
I don’t know if the time process itself can be polarized or if it is just the fluctuations that can. I imagined a rotating axial electric field (bottle brush style) to see if it could help sort out these fluctuation in order to create an accumulation and the causal structure. What I found is that these fluctuations get aligned just as the expected induced magnetic field would; are these two separate things, magnetic field and QF alignment, or is the magnetic field just that: an alignment of Q fluctuations? If so, it would be like saying that everything other than the strict time process is due to the organization of these fluctuations i.e. we are all riding on a very thin margin!
The light model presents us with another question. In normal representations, these are electric and magnetic vectors; the model is made of maths. What happen when we make the model out of stuff? A unidirectional increase/decrease in the time rate is a monopolar magnetic entity.... a monopole?
You like conservation laws? I believe that for logical reasons tied to the causality structure, there is also a law of conservation of structure. Also, an increase in time rate structure cannot be found without a decrease in time rate structure. That I believe is why we can’t find a quark alone... and monopole alone ...
Marcel,
-
FYI:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/nists-compact-gyroscope-may-turn-heads.cfm
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later. ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent?
1 million x zero = zero
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later. ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later. ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.
Typically, you buy disks, crush them and then make whatever shape you want from that. You just need to re-bake the YCBO into a nozzle shape.
IMO, this is a very strong magnet in the Earth's magnetic field. It looks like a compass to me. I wouldn't bother. The claim that it provides thrust with no power input makes everything about it suspect.
Todd
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Monomorphic did a FEKO simulation in a TE013 and let FEKO calculate out the max E-fields while showing the field structure deformations. E-Field Kv/m
for the curved it was 7500 and flat 1750
dB = 10 * Log (Pout / Pin)
or a diff of 6.3db
Shell
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later. ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.
Typically, you buy disks, crush them and then make whatever shape you want from that. You just need to re-bake the YCBO into a nozzle shape.
IMO, this is a very strong magnet in the Earth's magnetic field. It looks like a compass to me. I wouldn't bother. The claim that it provides thrust with no power input makes everything about it suspect.
Todd
I would have to agree with you Todd. Reminds me of a song "I want my M TV"... "Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free". Huge red flag for me to bring it into question.
Shell
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?
Thanks!
Shell
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?
Thanks!
Shell
These sims are of TheTravellers dims for a TE013 emdrive. ~2.4Ghz. I am working on designing a TE013 frustum with spherical end-plates that resonates at ~2.46Ghz. I am using a simple dipole antenna with side-wall injection.
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?
Thanks!
Shell
These sims are of TheTravellers dims for a TE013 emdrive. ~2.4Ghz. I am working on designing a TE013 frustum with spherical end-plates that resonates at ~2.46Ghz. I am using a simple dipole antenna with side-wall injection.
If you pull out the formula for calculating the Q of a spherical frustum spectrum you'll notice that the Q will increase but also at the expense of a decreased cavity resonate bandwidth.
It becomes obvious that driving a flat plat frustum works with a splattering 20MHz BW magnetron attached and a solid state works well with a curved endplate.
Also curving the Small end in my runs have shown relative little difference, it was the Big End that was critical. Not sure if it has to do with my running the small endplate just the other side of cutoff or not.
Shell
-
...the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.
"What we're doing is the extreme case of nonlinear optics, where the light and matter are coupled so strongly that we don't have light and matter anymore. We have something in between, called a polariton."
"What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."
~http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html)
Any similarities and/or correlations with your theory? Zero-Point Energy resonantly exciting electrons in a cavity making those electrons behave as a single gigantic atom? Perhaps the polaritons could be creating more focused asymmetrical power fluctuations in the copper?
The researches claim that they're achieving coupling of vacuum Rabi splitting as large as 10 percent of the photon energy. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but 10% sounds like pretty strong coupling to me!
Yes, there are definite similarities. It will take me some time to think about it, but thanks for bringing this to my attention.
-
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.
Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist. That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate? If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage. That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up.
This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:
I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties. Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects? That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter? But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UOQbqk2Z0g
-
Cannae's cavity looks much different than many of the DIYers here, who have been going more of the frustum Shawyer route. I'm wondering, now that Cannae is ~apparently~ trying to put their money where their mouth is and planning to put a demo cube sat in orbit, has anyone reconsidered their approach? Purely curious here, still watching all of this anxiously.
-
...
Meberbs: We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved. ....”Things accelerating without bound”: I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?
...
I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.
Marcel,
The answer to your first question is yes, it is possible. An integral does not require a derivative, those are inverse operations, similar to multiplication vs division, but not quite (the details don't matter right now). A key point is that you don't need to know anything about derivatives to do an integral, it has its own definition that only relies on limits of summations. Also 1/T is neither a derivative or part of the integration formula.
You didn't understand my statement, the accelerate without bound happens based on your statement to an object sitting in empty space, no gravity required. The object would experience time moving slower relative to its current reference frame if it was moving due to special relativity.
I looked at your attachment, and have quite a few issues I could point out in it, but I think it is best to take one point at a time. One thing that you have right in there is the rule of non-contradiction. One contradiction is enough to eliminate a theory.
-
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.
Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist. That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate? If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage. That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up.
This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:
I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties. Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects? That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter? But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?
According to the Reissner-Nordstrom equation, the sign of the charge doesn't matter. The refractive index is dependent on Q2 and the affect is anti-gravity, or an increase in the rate of a clock. The R-N solution results in a highly charged blackhole, will have a naked singularity and no event horizon.
This is a very old paper. A lot of my understanding has changed since then, but this has not.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model)
Anti-matter does not have the affect of anti-gravity. Anti-matter has positive mass and opposite charge. However, you are correct in that, every point charge is surrounded by virtual electron-positron pairs. A real electron for example, will swap places with a virtual electron and this is called Exchange scattering. So at the scale of point charges, the vacuum is composed of matter-antimatter. But far from such strong fields, it is just photons IMO.
-
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.
Don't shoot me if I'm wrong as I've just started on my formal education a week ago. But concidering that all particles are just excitations in their respective field, and anti-particles are just in the opposite "direction". Is there any other way than viewing the vacuum as a superposition of particles and antiparticles in all of the fields? Or maybe this would be wrong for fermions because of Paulis exclusion principle?
-
Cannae's cavity looks much different than many of the DIYers here, who have been going more of the frustum Shawyer route. I'm wondering, now that Cannae is ~apparently~ trying to put their money where their mouth is and planning to put a demo cube sat in orbit, has anyone reconsidered their approach? Purely curious here, still watching all of this anxiously.
Up having a cup of coco before I head back to bed and read your post.
You're quite right, Cannae's Drive looks much like a pillbox accelerator, also realize there are other ways to manipulate EM fields and achieve a similar result. Look at what Nicola Tesla was doing with a conical shaped frustum so many years ago.
http://physics.bu.edu/neppsr/2007/TALKS-2007/Accelerators_Barletta.pdf
Coco's done and back to bed. Good observation.
My Best,
Shell
-
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum? Thanks anyone, FL
Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Great! Maybe finally we will get the results I've been waiting for...
-
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.
Up to this you make it reads nearly like my point of view on the vacuum issue. The mechanism in my model is the handedness changing alternately; the Higgs field would have both positive and negative value phases, average value being zero. Dual handedness change phases could be the way how gravitational and inertial vacuum quanta flow from the space to the time as massive matter structures and simultaneously the way how the charge/electricity gets its polarity.
-
The more i think about the EM drive the more i am convinced you need to boost the power in the frustrum, the original cavity magnetron made by Randall and Booth before the second world war had 6 cavities alternating to achieve maximum power. Maybe we need multiple cavities in a cycling arrangement. Or even using a hydrogen maser instead of a rf unit.. The effect is still too marginal and we need to boost the power to make is really work. Or even thinking about a fractal frustrum.
-
Mberbs: Thank you for reading the attachment and for the comments. The logical causal structure, for a higher probability of existence in one direction, that I derived from simple logic is exactly the one found in the Alcubierre drive. I could be wrong ... but it doesn’t look that way. I do maintain that this causal structure is what we are trying to achieve here. How does that translate into an actual device?
I will start my own DIY work ... slowly. Quick stupid question: why is everyone using a torsion pendulum and laser instead of an accelerometer (cheap and USD data ready)? Actual force measurements?
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
Mberbs: Thank you for reading the attachment and for the comments. The logical causal structure, for a higher probability of existence in one direction, that I derived from simple logic is exactly the one found in the Alcubierre drive. I could be wrong ... but it doesn’t look that way. I do maintain that this causal structure is what we are trying to achieve here. How does that translate into an actual device?
I will start my own DIY work ... slowly. Quick stupid question: why is everyone using a torsion pendulum and laser instead of an accelerometer (cheap and USD data ready)? Actual force measurements?
Thanks,
Marcel,
The logic from what your statement about objects going towards smaller larger time dilation results in the conclusion that my phone should fly off my desk and slam into the wall. You have not addressed why this doesn't happen
There is very little logic in your paper, you makes statements that are then followed by conclusions that do not actually follow at all. For example, at the bottom of page 8 you say "This does sound a lot like" to bring in quantum mechanics. "Sounds like" is not a step in any logical process, because it is extremely weak evidence. Assuming that 2 things are the same because they are similar is simply a fallacy. Also the similarity is the word probability which you appear to have pulled out of nowhere in the previous paragraph.
Here is a metaphysical description of quantum mechanics, showing that probability is not necessarily what the wave function represents*: The wave function represents a distribution of locations, energies momentum etc. where the particle posses all of these properties at the same time. There is not a 50% chance that at any given time it is on the left or the right, it is on both the left and right at the same time. If you run an experiment that forces the particle to only be on one side, then there is a probability associated what the results of the experiment will be, but this is only due to the action of the experiment that will alter the state in an unpredictable way.
*I make no claim that this is necessarily the correct explanation, no respected physicist would make such a claim, since quantum is too weird and no one quite understands it. This is the one I like the most given the constraints imposed by tests of Bell's inequality.
A torsional pendulum gives actual force measurements, at least as directly as an accelerometer. displacement for a given lever arm directly represents an experienced force. Most accelerometers internally measure displacements in effect, but are much less sensitive and accurate. They also still need mass to translate to force as well. Plus an accelerometer needs something like an air track to get a frictionless motion, but that brings in many more complications including air resistance.
The torsional pendulum has been used for all of the most sensitive force experiments I have heard of, so it really is the best setup for measuring these small forces.
-
News on those Earth-size planet(s) in habitable zone of the Proxima Centauri reached the main media.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37167390
Lets hope that such news will have effect on imagination of scientists, engineers, dreamers and explorers.
We need new era of propulsion systems.
-
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released. Not sure of your question..
- ...”there is little logic...”. Remember that once you have a single stuff or substance and a single cause, these inferences are not only logically possible but even necessary. Two causes are one and the same. And if I say “it sounds like” it is offered and to be taken as such; : “sounds like”. These will appear where and when I try to parallel the metaphysics and known physics.
- “Here is a metaphysical description...”. That is not metaphysics. In true metaphysics “your are not there”. It is about what exists and what makes it evolve/change by itself. The time process was deduced from top-down according to what we know, and bottom-up, from a logical creation of the universe.This metaphysics is about what the universe is made of and what it does by itself spontaneously. Everything we know is about what we can do with the universe; it is on a need to know basis. The universe doesn’t need to know physics because it is ruled by simple logic. Metaphysics is extremely limited; substance, cause and some forms and shapes. That’s it! It has no predictive power; this is in the hands number logic or maths and physics.
- Ok torsional pendulum for measurement = quantitative, precise. But a simple accelerometer like the ADXL (MEMS) can show acceleration/gravity in g = as a first go/no-go or qualitative signal?
-
- Ok torsional pendulum for measurement = quantitative, precise. But a simple accelerometer like the ADXL (MEMS) can show acceleration/gravity in g = as a first go/no-go or qualitative signal?
That accelerometer only has a resolution of 4mg. That's 4 milli-gravities, not milligrams. The accelerometer i'm using has a resolution of 76 ug - 76 micro-gravities. http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?product_id=1044
Even at 76ug (748um/s2), it is still orders of magnitude less sensitive than a Laser Displacement Sensor capable of detecting 3um displacement.
-
Monomorphic: Thanks for the numbers in comparison ( I have an old ADXL serial and a Phidget 1056). Also, the mass of the pendulum has memory and it integrates any effect that would transient.
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.
Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist. That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate? If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage. That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up.
This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:
I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties. Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects? That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter? But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?
According to the Reissner-Nordstrom equation, the sign of the charge doesn't matter. The refractive index is dependent on Q2 and the affect is anti-gravity, or an increase in the rate of a clock. The R-N solution results in a highly charged blackhole, will have a naked singularity and no event horizon.
This is a very old paper. A lot of my understanding has changed since then, but this has not.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model)
Anti-matter does not have the affect of anti-gravity. Anti-matter has positive mass and opposite charge. However, you are correct in that, every point charge is surrounded by virtual electron-positron pairs. A real electron for example, will swap places with a virtual electron and this is called Exchange scattering. So at the scale of point charges, the vacuum is composed of matter-antimatter. But far from such strong fields, it is just photons IMO.
I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity. Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart. I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity. I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect. The light being the polarization of the QV.
Thanks for the paper, I'll need to look it over when I get some time. I just thought it interesting in that he suggested at 34:00 that one of the charges would have the properties of exotic matter in that it would reduce the energy level or mass of the charge which suggested to me that maybe the charge was attracting the presence of some type of negative energy density, possibly from anti matter of the QV. I'm not sure his video is intentionally related to what I am thinking about, but I had an uncanny feeling of a similarity from it.
Also isn't charge conserved? If far away the QV was just photons then I don't understand how charge could just decompose into just photons. Maybe away from the presence of strong fields the separation of charge in the QV doesn't show up because it takes a field to separate the charges in the QV? Well, I probably need to read up more on the subject.
-
FYI:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/grp07/measuring-tiny-forces-with-light.cfm
-
I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity. Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart. I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity. I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect. The light being the polarization of the QV.
I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.
-
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released. Not sure of your question..
My original statement was "results in the conclusion that my phone should fly off my desk and slam into the wall." What you responded with is a completely different situation. Let me try to clarify slightly "results in the conclusion that my phone when sitting on the floor should spontaneously fly off sideways and slam into the wall."
- ...”there is little logic...”. Remember that once you have a single stuff or substance and a single cause, these inferences are not only logically possible but even necessary. Two causes are one and the same. And if I say “it sounds like” it is offered and to be taken as such; : “sounds like”. These will appear where and when I try to parallel the metaphysics and known physics.
No, you are drawing a conclusion based on a fallacy. You do not provide any separate logical justification, only this correlation based on similarity. Jumping to a conclusion based on this is equivalent to saying a fire truck and a Ferrari are both red, so they both must be intended for fire fighting. This is simply wrong.
- “Here is a metaphysical description...”. That is not metaphysics. In true metaphysics “your are not there”. It is about what exists and what makes it evolve/change by itself. The time process was deduced from top-down according to what we know, and bottom-up, from a logical creation of the universe.This metaphysics is about what the universe is made of and what it does by itself spontaneously. Everything we know is about what we can do with the universe; it is on a need to know basis. The universe doesn’t need to know physics because it is ruled by simple logic. Metaphysics is extremely limited; substance, cause and some forms and shapes. That’s it! It has no predictive power; this is in the hands number logic or maths and physics.
What I gave was an explanation of why the particle behaves as quantum mechanics predicts as an attempt to state the truth of what is really happening. Just because it doesn't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it not metaphysics.
Also even metaphysics should have some predictive power. It can do this by showing how a branch of physics can be reformulated to closer match the truth of how the universe works. This enables physics to get a theory closer to grand unification and make more useful predictions. If this wasn't true, then the start of your paper claiming that if we had better metaphysics we wouldn't still be using chemical rockets would be wrong.
-
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later. ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Extremely skeptical of the Nassikas claim in that link. But is it possible he's just made a very compact magsail?
-
Uh actually I was not debating anything.
It's a rough crowd here. Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors. The first one to do so wins. They do like debating tho!
Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Most of the designs here are closed cavities. No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.
For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device. Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.
I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey. Thanks for posting.
-
4N/kilowatt force/thrust will take us to Proxima Centauri b in 29.9 years.
In the presence of water the tidally locked PC b there would be a ring of temperate and breezy zones to live in.
Anyone for a large build yet?
-
FYI:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/grp07/measuring-tiny-forces-with-light.cfm
Hah!
Check out what else they're doing with photons these days!
syntheticneurobiology.org/PDFs/10.06.boyden.pdf
-
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released. Not sure of your question..
My original statement was...
Mberbs: Nice rebuttal.
-
Nassika's patent:
www.google.com/patents/US8952773
-
Mberbs: The cell phone “statement” was not about exposing anything. You can do better than that.
...fallacy. The first part of my work was to come up with a single type of substance and a single type of cause. Let me put it this way; everything that happen spontaneously in the universe is due to this single type of cause; what exists, does so more where the rate of time is slower. Moving clouds in the sky, rolling waves on the ocean, galaxies forming, objects falling, atom forming etc. The deepest reason why is this “cause”.
.... Why... Physics says HOW things work. It always ask “why” they do so, as an intellectual move, but the methodology based on experience always return a “How” it happen. Equations connect facts and connected facts do not require any logical cause. The only answer to the “why” question is a bare bone logical cause.
... Predictive power.. Here I just acknowledge the limitations of metaphysics and recognize what truly belongs to physics. Prediction requires numbers and this metaphysics , as far as I understand it myself, stops at the number 1 and zero; existence and non-existence.
Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
Four decades of BB, Alt-phys, forums etc. Some posts require an excruciatingly delicate balance between biting and begging. But being these weird humans, the two are about the same thing; connecting at a cost.”Biting” is connecting at the cost of hurting the other. “Begging” is connected at the cost of hurting yourself. If we did not feel the connection as so imperative, we could manage to do it without a cost. Yes..... we are weird... but so beautiful at the same time.
my apologies,
Marcel,
-
...
Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.
I don't have any questions for you, except what did you not understand about my previous posts? You proposed some statements about how the universe works. I pointed out using the clearest explanations I could: why your statements are not consistent with how the universe works, and that there are flaws in what you refer to as logic.
Unless you choose to actually respond to these points rather than ignoring them, I do not know how to state this any clearer than I have. There is certainly more details we could discuss, but there is no reason for me to go further if you don't respond to what I have said so far. If you are unable to understand, then hopefully my explanations have helped other readers on this site understand the flaws in your hypothesis.
-
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless. :o
-
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless. :o
We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss. ;D
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
-
I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity. Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart. I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity. I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect. The light being the polarization of the QV.
I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.
I found some interesting information on a cern link that touches on some history. I was excited to see that Richard Feynman may have thought of anti-matter as traveling back in time. It might be connected to the Wheeler-Feynman theory and the Feynman diagrams. I'll probably have to look more into it. Here is the link: http://cds.cern.ch/record/294366/files/open-96-005.pdf
This may also be connected and I suspect it appears to suggest dark matter as anti matter in another dimension where space time flows out of that matter and pulls our space time in leading to gravity but from another dimension? I could be wrong on this as I still have to read this article. I suspect it is what it is about because it was something that I had considered previously. Link is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812021 They mention Feynman and reverse time for anti-matter also! Mmmm, not quite what I expected I suppose.
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless. :o
We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss. ;D
I suppose I found it exciting because it got my mind thinking in a way I hadn't yet which was to make the connection of time reversal in anti-matter and that inducing gravity and relativity. Not sure how solid that foundation might be yet but it seems there may already be some structure for it. I was feeling the need to better understand the quantum vacuum if we are going to speculate we can push off of it.
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Are you able to share the name?
-
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless. :o
We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss. ;D
If Dr. Rodal is correct in the paper from NASA being accepted for publication then I suspect the blog here will be jumping, of course it depends what's in the paper. NASA has been so very closed on this, it's been frustrating not seeing open information available like NASA, as a public entity normally operates. Geez, they even televised all the Shuttle and Apollo launches, good and bad.
I wrote to a dear friend a bit ago... "We are at the cusp of living a dream of many or being a memory of none".
Let's hope for the best.
Shell
-
Keep us posted, doc!
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Hooray at long last. Thank you for that news. I wonder how long this news will take to spread wider online.
-
With this peer reviewed success, we should be putting more projects like cannae in the sky soon no??? Onward and outward or what???
-
If the effect is finally accepted as real, even if just 1mN/kW, then a lot more researchers will start digging around the edges, trying to increase efficiency.
That is, provided the Eagleworks paper provides enough detailed information so that others can replicate the experiment.
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
(http://replygif.net/i/457.gif)
So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
I am not sure if it's diplomatic for you to ask that.
-
The paris are open to guess which items are covered in the new test report/paper of Eagleworks :):
1 - Emdrive effect shown to exist in vacuum condition.
2 - Emdrive thrust measured for a superconductive cavity.
3 - Emdrive effect shown to exist for a configuration which includes the power supply of the microwave generator.
4 - Emdrive thrust investigated for various RF input power and various electro-magnetic modes configurations.
5 - Emdrive thrust shown to exist in free fall condition (no acceleration).
6 - Statement that no Emdrive effect could be detected in a clean vacuum environment. :(
-
Uh actually I was not debating anything.
It's a rough crowd here. Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors. The first one to do so wins. They do like debating tho!
Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Most of the designs here are closed cavities. No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.
For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device. Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.
I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey. Thanks for posting.
Sure no problem, drill sergeants took care of any sniveling I had a long time ago so my feelings are not so easily hurt. I love to argue as well, if I am qualified to, which on these subjects I am not. I am an IT contractor, not an engineer or physicist. I have given money to Shell and do what I can to help because space has always been my dream. If anyone building these in Albany NY would like a motivated assistant to help them do their build I am absolutely jumping up in the air waving my hands! ;D I just really love learning new things, which I have here almost every day.
I simply wanted to make sure that people saw the article so that we were not missing anything. I do not fully understand the explanation of it given in an article I read, about photons pairing and leaving the frustum as an exhaust that they had to use an interferometer to detect. I will let others here that are qualified decide the value of the article.
BTW, congratulation to the Nasa Eagleworks team on their peer review!!! The detected thrust is nowhere near what the original EMDrive claims were, but if the effect is real then I have every confidence that some of these intellectual heroes will find ways to maximize the effect.
Back to lurking...
-
Considering anti-matter in the Quantum Vacuum and the possibility its presence may slow down time and then paralleling it to the Polarizable vacuum theory where when time slows down things become more massive as the QV decreases in energy. Condensed negative energy in a positive energy region?
Now consider that charging a capacitor may polarize the Quantum Vacuum and that the negative side of the capacitor would attract positive protons and positive electrons but the protons are more massive. The reverse for the positive side of a capacitor. They may induce a gradient of energy density in the QV which changes the mass of light or associated charges but the question is what magnitude.
The thought occurred to me, "what if due to the shape of the frustum and the changing magnetic field inside caused free electrons to be pushed to one side of the cavity making the cavity some what of a capacitor. The question being what if we purposely separated charge between the back and front of the frustum or a cylinder. With repeated reflections of light inside and some changing mass of said light was induced.
In the least it introduces another parameter to test that could possibly have an influence on the magnitude of thrust if there is any. How it might be done is using a TE mode so that current follows a circular path. Put a dielectric ring between the two sides of the cavity maybe making 3 sections - top, mid and bottom and separate charge between the top and bottom. There should still be plenty of free charge to reflect light in the two sides of the cavity so that isn't an issue.
Any thoughts on the matter? Could we test it as a parameter?
Now that I think of it, it may be difficult to set up any electric field inside the cavity as the cavity tends to shield everything inside.
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results :)
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even. Orrrrrr..... they've discovered something, and they just don't know everything about it and need more money and more experiments in order to fully discover its potential. Doesn't mean the door has to be closed though, so we just don't know yet.
P.S. I think the leak happened right here. Just sayin'.
#popcorn
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results :)
But even positive results would be no good if it didn't bring any funding.
-
So after, what, 17 months, 8 threads and 3.5 million+ folks reading here I guess we all have to wait a while longer ;D
Anybody want to opine how long before the paper is released, since I have no idea? Are we talking another month or two? ???
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Thank you for the news Dr. Rodal. Whatever the results are, lets hope it will also help to decrease that war between supporters of this device (like me I know...)and the critics.
Dr. Rodal any idea if Paul March still visits this forum? Can he tell us which journal it will be published in?
-
While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even.
If they show compelling evidence of any force greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket without discernible reaction mass, it could be enough force to shatter the earth (It would be earth shattering). What it is capable of lifting at our current tech level is far down the list of what is important.
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
2016 is such an interesting year for the EmDrive.
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
The attached will explain.
I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward, more papers will be shared.
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
The attached will explain.
I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward, more papers will be shared.
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations
-
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations
SPR is was started by Roger. He had NDAs that have timers. Once the times expire, he can release data, as he does.
You need to review his latest peer reviewed paper (at www.emdrive.com) and maybe start to accept that he talks about is real.
-
Interesting that Roger has now shared the dielectric he used
Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38
how he tuned the dielectric position and the full internal dimensions of his 1st Experimental EmDrive.
-
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations
SPR is was started by Roger. He had NDAs that have timers. Once the times expire, he can release data, as he does.
You need to review his latest peer reviewed paper (at www.emdrive.com) and maybe start to accept that he talks about is real.
You don't get to say what anyone "needs" to do. I am not sure why you would bother to point someone to the peer review paper anyway (unless you mean the new papers, but since they weren't published in a journal, calling them peer-reviewed would be misleading). From what I remember, it is essentially a "what-if" description stating how interstellar travel would work assuming you had a drive with the properties Shawyer claims. There is only one paragraph I remember stating how the EmDrive supposedly works. Seeing the flaw in that paragraph would have required a different expertise than what most reviewers for that paper would have had.
The person who appears to have reviewed these 2 newly released papers states in one of his conclusions:
I do not feel qualified to pronounce upon the physical principles exploited by the invention but I understand others have done so.
The others I am aware of who have done so have all found flaws in the theory. Shawyer has claimed otherwise, but again, there is not a single name of someone who knows the relevant physics who thinks there is any merit to Shawyer's theory.
As to the experiment, the same author states in the other paper:
There is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section
4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The numbering doesn't seem to match up with the paper I believe he is reviewing, so it seems a different version of something may have been uploaded. I won't go into details about what I see in Shawyer's papers other than to note that this reviewer, despite admitting to lack in some of the background required for the theory was able to point out multiple potential issues. In addition, I do not recommend that anyone try to replicate Shawyer's spring + scale setup, since that setup fundamentally is prone to all sorts of anomalous results.
It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.
-
It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.
Here is the issue:
The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
-
It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.
Here is the issue:
The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
Caveat emptor, being able to explain why something works is not the same thing as being right about why something works.
-
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.
-
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.
Roger told me extensive discussion on his theory occured on both sides of the Atlantic and that in the end his theory held up. I suspect those discussions were engaged under NDA and will one day see the light of day.
Here is the kicker, Roger's thrust equation does predict the measured thrust. That equation is based on his theory.
-
Regardless some very impressive DIY builds, we still have to see any conclusive results.
So far we've seen interesting and intriguing results, but none are conclusively confirming the EMdrive effect.
This is not about "believing or not believing" but gathering hard, irrefutable evidence that the effect is real. And , obviously, we're not there yet...
I suppose we're all eagerly waiting for the "eye opener of 2016 event", that TT promised us many months ago, else... he'll have no other option then to eat his hat... :)
4 months to go...
-
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.
Roger told me extensive discussion on his theory occured on both sides of the Atlantic and that in the end his theory held up. I suspect those discussions were engaged under NDA and will one day see the light of day.
Here is the kicker, Roger's thrust equation does predict the measured thrust. That equation is based on his theory.
Discussion with who? he keeps repeating this claim of supporters for his theory, but no one with a relevant physics background has ever stated support for his theory. An NDA would not prevent him from saying "ask this physicist, they found my theory to be fine."
His theory is fundamentally contradictory. Using only the definition of force, I have shown that given Shawyer's assumptions the drive would move the other way. I have also shown using only the definition of conservation of momentum that the device, if it works by the mechanism Shawyer describes would break conservation of momentum, yet Shawyer claims that his device conserves momentum.
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.
-
.....
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.
Blind faith and scientific methodology are like oil and water.... they don't mix very well... :)
-
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.
Yet it works and you can't explain it with your theory while Roger can explain it with his theory.
-
Regardless some very impressive DIY builds, we still have to see any conclusive results.
So far we've seen interesting and intriguing results, but none are conclusively confirming the EMdrive effect.
This is not about "believing or not believing" but gathering hard, irrefutable evidence that the effect is real. And , obviously, we're not there yet...
I suppose we're all eagerly waiting for the "eye opener of 2016 event", that TT promised us many months ago, else... he'll have no other option then to eat his hat... :)
4 months to go...
I could post some data that is confidential as of yet but I will not.
Interesting data from 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?
For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.
This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.
-
I could post some data that is confidential as of yet but I will not.
Interesting data from 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?
For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.
This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.
It looked to me that this video showed that the rotatory apparatus started from speed 0, accelerated, reached a maximum, then decelerated, then reached speed 0 again, then the video was cut. It is attempting to predict that if the video were continued, the apparatus would have rotated backwards, making an oscillation, just like what a big compass would behave. Would you please ask Mr. Shawyer what happened after the video was cut?
-
Here is the issue:
The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
But doesn't.
Fixed that for ya.
-
You don't get to say what anyone "needs" to do.
Yeah I do. Just chill.
-
Not wanting to start a controversy here TT , so , my apology if you perceived my previous post as "hostile".
TT, I would be genuinely happy if anyone could prove the EM drive works. It would have profound implication, especially for future space travel.
So...Don't mistake my skepticism for hand wavering or disapproval... :)
I too really want this to work, really , but... not at the expense of scientific rigor and common sense.
If Roger or you, or anyone else succeeds in demonstrating the EM effect, with clear evidence and free from background noise, I'll be one of the first to congratulate that person.
As for the video, I'm well aware of the video and several threads ago, I formulate my remarks on it. Main issue i have with it is the gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump. It should have been turned 90°, through the rotating axis of the setup.
SeeShell also formulated the remark of vibrations with air-bearings causing circular movement of the setup.
It can indeed be due to the EM effect that it rotated, I will not deny that, but until all the other possibilities are ruled out, you're simply jumping the gun that it HAS to be the EMdrive. Maybe it is , maybe it is not...
You get to the truth through elimination, not through assumption...
-
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.
Yet it works and you can't explain it with your theory while Roger can explain it with his theory.
Of course the caveat to the Feynman quote is that even if your theory agrees with experiment, it's probably wrong.
-
A couple of last minute improvements before I resume regular testing. I've removed all zinc (ferromagnetic) machine screws from the build and replaced with all brass and some stainless steel.
I also added casters to my lab workbench. I can now move the entire build out into the room and 360 degrees with ease. With these casters I can support 800 lbs - far more than I will ever need.
-
TT, I would be genuinely happy if anyone could prove the EM drive works. It would have profound implication, especially for future space travel.
So...Don't mistake my skepticism for hand wavering or disapproval... :)
This. Seriously, read this. It applies to me as well. Please keep that in mind we aren't enemies here.
Also, I am not sure if you realize the irony in responding to a post where I point out that Shawyer's theory and experiment disagree with that Feynman quote. I don't have a theory, but others have proposed theories that are at least plausible explanations if the device is shown to work.
Now back to waiting for data.
-
I was back in thread 2 and found one of Dr. Rodal's old posts that caught my interest, I must have missed it at the time, or it took time for me to realize its significance. It is this post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1357720#msg1357720 They are discussing a paper cited by Paul. Rodal points out this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6380v5.pdf
I read through it and it appears to me they are suggesting the quantum vacuum is made up of anti-matter and matter? Some charged and even uncharged. This one appears to take into account spatial structure and the electro-magnetic properties. Is it just me or does it suggest a capacitor could cause polarization of the Quantum Vacuum also? Maybe the energies required would be too much but I wonder if there could be a frequency dependence or resonance of the QV.
-
Our own Dr. Rodal has his name in the paper:
http://tinyurl.com/zhu2had
-
Our own Dr. Rodal has his name in the paper:
http://tinyurl.com/zhu2had
For a popular media article, this is pretty good. Seems the journalists did their homework this time.
-
Agreed. They read it here first.... :)
-
A couple of last minute improvements before I resume regular testing. I've removed all zinc (ferromagnetic) machine screws from the build and replaced with all brass and some stainless steel.
Monomprphic:
You don't mention testing the stainless steel to see it is magnetic or not. Some forms are quite magnetic others are not. Given your goal, I hope you have tested that hardware with a strong magnet.
Looks like your build is progressing nicely. Good testing with it.
-
... it appears to me they are suggesting the quantum vacuum is made up of anti-matter and matter? Some charged and even uncharged. This one appears to take into account spatial structure and the electro-magnetic properties. Is it just me or does it suggest a capacitor could cause polarization of the Quantum Vacuum also? Maybe the energies required would be too much but I wonder if there could be a frequency dependence or resonance of the QV.
I found:
http://lib.org.by/get/P_Physics/PQft_Quantum%20field%20theory/
PQed_Quantum%20electrodynamics/Milonni%20P.W.%20The%20quantum
%20vacuum..%20introduction%20to%20QED%20%28AP%2C%201994
%29%28ISBN%200124980805%29%28KA%29%28T%29%28536s%29_PQed_.djvu
from a reference in http://www.onlyspacetime.com/
Feast!
And thanks again to Shell's for the Reed paper :)
-
...
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?
For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.
This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.
Aw, don't be that way. I believe, FWIW. The papers you posted were very interesting and appreciated, for me anyways.
When I first read Shawyer's released theory papers, I didn't get the equations at all. After a year researching waveguide propagation, dispersion, field theory, the vacuum, et. They make sense to me.
Then again, I was looking for it, since from the outset I considered radiation counter-propagating at the speed of light to be an absolute reference frame (evidenced by such things as the Sagnac effect, and particle de Broglie wavelength, velocity and inertia of every freek'in Fermion in the Universe) as described in a number of the references that have been sited here. Even Shawyer too.
Please post more, and more of your experiments and results, and stop feeding trolls that bite and make you run away crying ;)
-
Latest developments are reaching more news sites. Daily mail was first to publish the news. It seems they were following the NSF quite a lot.
I also spot few that were just utterly wrong....Once again refering to EmDrive as Warp Drive...
This one is ok.
goo.gl/ECPpDn
Also Hi to guys from Hacked news site as they are following us closely now.
Edit: Another article just went live - goo.gl/702HhN
This article is also well written. I am glad to see that so far less articles exagerate and more focus on facts.
Dr. Rodal is in spotlight ;D
Also IBTimes spoke directly to Mr. Shawyer - I have that confirmed from good source.
"He is also actively working to test the technology out on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), in the hope of creating feasible flying cars."
Shawyer is now actively working on the second-generation EmDrive with an unnamed UK aerospace company and the new device is meant to be able to achieve tonnes of thrust (1T = 1,000kg), rather than just a few grams.
"We're trying to achieve thrust levels that go up by many orders of magnitude, where the q values of the cavities are between 1 x 109 and 5 x 104. Once you reach the levels of thrust we anticipate we will reach, you can apply it anywhere," he told IBTimes UK. "Essentially, anything that currently flies or drives or floats can use EmDrive technology."
Second Edit: Used link shortener on advice of Mr. Chris below.
-
Due to its contentious nature I am guessing this paper is going to have had a lot of peer reviewers.
-
May I have a question about NASA EW's plan? They once said that they were going to increase the force to 100mN, and only after that would they transfer the test apparatus to another NASA facility for validation. Given they now claimed 1mN/1KW in the paper that had just passed peer review, could we suppose that 100mN plan can not be achieved if the power is much less than 100KW so it is now abandoned? Note that 100KW is a lot of power, I suppose the frustum will be evaporated in seconds, and if not there is something seriously wrong.
-
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.
-
Remember, if you have a massive URL, http://tinyurl.com/ it otherwise you break the internet ;)
-
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.
Then think about heating 1kg of copper (the frustum) with that power.
-
Sorry if it has been asked already, but I didnt see it - now that we are in phase 2 of the waiting game, when will it show up on the preprint page or in the journal itself? Is there a typical timeline? Or are there edits/further things that could derail/delay this?
-
Sorry if it has been asked already, but I didnt see it - now that we are in phase 2 of the waiting game, when will it show up on the preprint page or in the journal itself? Is there a typical timeline? Or are there edits/further things that could derail/delay this?
The journal people is talking more about appears in a bi-monthly basis. The latest one is the September issue (with web content that is readable now), therefore the next one should be published in November (with web content probably available in October). This is the technical publication I have heard referred to this:
http://arc.aiaa.org/loi/jpp
http://arc.aiaa.org/page/jpp/masthead
This is from an user in another forum, so please take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure the currently peer-reviewed papers appear in the very next issue, though. Probably there's some queue of papers waiting to appear.
-
Admittedly, I am not well versed in thermal dynamics. I'm not saying it isn't an issue for concern, but it isn't a deal-breaker. We are talking about dielectric heating as opposed to heating a series resistor. It's the difference between your oven's heating element and nuking something in the microwave, which is probably set to heat between 800 and 1000W. Granted you probably aren't putting anything conductive in your microwave, but I'm sure some sort of heat dissipation system will be used in the end to combat the thermal problems.
-
Admittedly, I am not well versed in thermal dynamics. I'm not saying it isn't an issue for concern, but it isn't a deal-breaker. We are talking about dielectric heating as opposed to heating a series resistor. It's the difference between your oven's heating element and nuking something in the microwave, which is probably set to heat between 800 and 1000W. Granted you probably aren't putting anything conductive in your microwave, but I'm sure some sort of heat dissipation system will be used in the end to combat the thermal problems.
NASA Eagleworks did some of their testing in a vacuum chamber to eliminate thermal lift as a contributor, and some of that information is in older threads. We'll have to wait to see the full details in the paper.
-
May I have a question about NASA EW's plan? They once said that they were going to increase the force to 100mN, and only after that would they transfer the test apparatus to another NASA facility for validation. Given they now claimed 1mN/1KW in the paper that had just passed peer review, could we suppose that 100mN plan can not be achieved if the power is much less than 100KW so it is now abandoned? Note that 100KW is a lot of power, I suppose the frustum will be evaporated in seconds, and if not there is something seriously wrong.
IIRC, the measured forces on the Eagleworks tests were in the order of 50-55-90 µN.... (see http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)
So they had to achieve 100µN to get secondary testing, not 100mN.
There was never a mentioning of "force per watt" (N/kW), just force (N). It was all about the sensitivity of the force measurement instruments, not about the efficiency of the EMdrive...
-
IIRC, the measured forces on the Eagleworks tests were in the order of 50-55-90 µN.... (see http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)
So they had to achieve 100µN to get secondary testing, not 100mN.
There was never a mentioning of "force per watt" (N/kW), just force (N). It was all about the sensitivity of the force measurement instruments, not about the efficiency of the EMdrive...
Ah, Thank you, I must have had a bad memory. 100uN was definitely more likely the goal.
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
Both Shawyer and The Traveler have strongly recommended that the frustum ends be spherical to improve efficiency. To date the DIY folks have mostly used flat ends because it is easier and less costly if your goal is to just see any force.
The threads here are long with some exceptional discussions going on covering a vast array of information and theory. They are actually quite remarkable. It takes a lot of work but I would suggest you start skimming them around the end of March 2015.
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.
My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.
IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
Hi Johnathan, drive builder here. I'm going to try to jump in here for a bit as you are asking honest questions.
Typically you can see an increase of around 6db by using semi-spherical ends although that is just in the Q.
This is a sweep in FEKO done by Monomorphic of one of my cavities with curved endplates that make give you a feel for what's happening. 2.40GHz > 2.42GHz loop driven sidewall.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhlFBjJDvo&feature=youtu.be
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.
My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.
IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.
Love your brain!
Very true look at the sim I just posted and you'll notice that the small endplate isn't curved.
Shell
-
Thanks for the suggestions :) :)
If this idea is promising, can yield a scholarship at MIT kkk
To improve efficiency , it would be something like this (Attachment) ?
-
Thanks for the suggestions :) :)
If this idea is promising, can yield a scholarship at MIT kkk
To improve efficiency , it would be something like this (Attachment) ?
This is easier to understand and see.
-
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Why would that be?
Momentum can be conserved without thrust.
When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.
If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine. Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".
I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".
-
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Why would that be?
Momentum can be conserved without thrust.
When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.
If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine. Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".
I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".
For the test drives the walls of the room could be the mass that moves in the opposite direction. We can barely detect the force on the drive let alone the force on walls fastened to the ground.
-
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Why would that be?
Momentum can be conserved without thrust.
When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.
If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine. Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".
I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".
For the test drives the walls of the room could be the mass that moves in the opposite direction. We can barely detect the force on the drive let alone the force on walls fastened to the ground.
Right, and for space drive applications, it could be tugging on the sun or the Oort cloud for all I know. In theory.
Just want to get the exhaust-less thing out of the way.
-
Congrats. I am an anti-skeptic(Marcello Truzzi) when it comes to scientific breakthroughs however, Dr. Shawyer's presentation seems to claim that when the superconducting features are added to the em drive then thrust will be increased by orders of magnitude. So can someone knowledgeable explain to me why those testing the device don't just use a version that incorporates superconducting features? Is it that its so much more expensive? Is part of the problem here funding, as in few people are willing to even spend the money to test a device or scale up the size of the device so that it can clearly be shown to work or not?
2. Also, assuming it does not produce much thrust isn't it true that even at some minimal thrust x, the device will go into production and just scaled up as solar powered thrust on a satellite needing no propellant is so much better than just plain old thrust requiring propellant? Solar power for satellites will likely get cheaper and more powerful each year into the future.
-
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.
My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.
IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.
Loosely speaking, the way to increase Q is to set your cavity such that resonance occurs only at a single, 'pure' frequency rather than a base frequency + a(n infinite ) series of higher order harmonics. Again loosely speaking, this occurs when your cavity and your resonating fields 'belong' to one chosen coordinate system.
What does that mean?
Well, consider a cube. If your cavity is a cube, you'll have 'pure' resonance solutions in cartesian coordinates (x,y,z). Injecting, say, a single rectangular plane wave can cause a strong resonance if the frequency of that wave is well-chosen. Consider now an cylinder. This cavity will have 'pure' solutions expressed using bessel/hankle functions. If you excite the cavity with such, then you can again get strong resonance. If, however, you attempt to excite the cylindrical cavity with a rectangular plane wave (or vice-versa), then you'll have a mis-match between your wave and your cavity, and the malformed wave is then forced to convert into a form that matches the cavity. In layman's terms, this manifests as your original wave breaking into multiple different waves; spreading your energy out among multiple frequencies and modes. If you want a high Q (single, pure mode) this is bad. Therefore, one should chose a wave that matches the cavity.
The problem with a flat-ended frustum is that the cavity itself mixes coordinate systems. Flat endplates are very cartesian, however the curved wall is actually best thought of as a truncated cone, which belongs in the spherical coordinate domain. As such, the resonant modes in the cavity are never quite pure. A well designed setup can still produce good data, but you're always losing energy to this back and forth conversion game. Using curved endplates, such that the cavity geometry becomes a truncated spherical cone, restores the 'pureness' of the setup; and thus much higher Q factors can be achieved.
Well, at least theoretically. Engineering is pretty much the study of getting something built well enough to work as an optimal solution may not actually exist. It's the study of intelligent trade-offs and compormises. High Q is desirable. It's also more difficult to tune, more difficult to build, and more dependent on the rest of your hardware working near-perfectly. If a high-Q frustum falls out of resonance, it's going to fall fast and hard. Flat end plates are easier to work with; and won't bankrupt the home-builders here who are funding their own experiments out of pocket. (At least not as quickly. Some of the guys here are getting pretty into this: I half expect to see a vacuum chamber pop up here soon!)
For the more mathematically inclined, a good treatment is found here regarding closed form solutions to a truncates spherical cone. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) I don't remember seeing this posted before, but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been; all company considered.
The main takeaway from that page is that the sharp curves of the corners can often be rendered insignificant if one choses a (pure!) resonant mode such that the corners are null regions in your standing waves. Scroll down about 3/4 of the way through that page to the "Current, Heating, and Q factors" section and look at the differences in some of the TM shapes. In this case, I believe the benefit to gentle corners would be vastly outweighed by the loss of Q in some of these more exotic cavity shapes.
-
Congrats. I am an anti-skeptic(Marcello Truzzi) when it comes to scientific breakthroughs however, Dr. Shawyer's presentation seems to claim that when the superconducting features are added to the em drive then thrust will be increased by orders of magnitude. So can someone knowledgeable explain to me why those testing the device don't just use a version that incorporates superconducting features? Is it that its so much more expensive? Is part of the problem here funding, as in few people are willing to even spend the money to test a device or scale up the size of the device so that it can clearly be shown to work or not?
2. Also, assuming it does not produce much thrust isn't it true that even at some minimal thrust x, the device will go into production and just scaled up as solar powered thrust on a satellite needing no propellant is so much better than just plain old thrust requiring propellant? Solar power for satellites will likely get cheaper and more powerful each year into the future.
Yes It would be very expensive to make. Our DIYers here, that work on their frustrums run as well campaings to raise funds for their projects. I believe it is at least 10000 dollars for each of them so far. And their are working "only" on the models that do not have superconducting features.
In this regard if some new folks are willing to add some dollar to the cause I am sure SeeShells, Rfmwguy (where is he by the way?) and Monomorphic would be glad for donations.
-
REBCO HTSC cable is about 200 USD per meter, if I am not mistaken. Not sure how much you guys would need.
-
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
-
Found this as I was doing some research to catch up on the discussion:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0390.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0390.pdf)
Interesting read, hope it hasn't been posted and discussed already, I'm only to thread 4 in review.... LOT of reading.
Is there a way to extrapolate 2D data into a 3D application?
*modified for spelling error
-
The paris are open to guess which items are covered in the new test report/paper of Eagleworks :):
1 - Emdrive effect shown to exist in vacuum condition.
2 - Emdrive thrust measured for a superconductive cavity.
3 - Emdrive effect shown to exist for a configuration which includes the power supply of the microwave generator.
4 - Emdrive thrust investigated for various RF input power and various electro-magnetic modes configurations.
5 - Emdrive thrust shown to exist in free fall condition (no acceleration).
6 - Statement that no Emdrive effect could be detected in a clean vacuum environment. :(
1
-
Anyone else see latest experimental results suggest strong magnetic fields impart mass on electrons?
-
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!
Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*
Best,
Shell
-
Anyone else see latest experimental results suggest strong magnetic fields impart mass on electrons?
I assume you mean this.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html
-
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!
Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*
Best,
Shell
Surprisingly, a little better with small end flat.
-
I also performed another 5-minute unpowered run with magnetic tap tests in both directions. This is the first time I have been able to monitor vertical beam displacement (what would be thermal lifting during powered tests). The second image is zoomed into the vertical beam displacement so you can see just how sensitive these Laser Displacement Sensors (LDS) are - able to detect minute vibrations.
-
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Why would that be?
Momentum can be conserved without thrust.
When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.
If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine. Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".
I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".
Thank you meekGee,
if all charges interact, and it is hard to imagine that they do not, then there is a mechanism of action for the emdrive which would be easy to define. The problem with this explanation is that the instant reaction of inertia requires the propulsive action of the emdrive to be instant at cosmic distances. This is only possible if time is complex, which it must be if physics is ever to be resolved as a seamless explanation for our observations.
John Newell..
Link to previously posted amateur paper on the subject.
http://www.bloomfieldeducation.com/resources/PDF38.pdf
-
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.
On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
-
On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
About 500 kg worth of solar panels, I would estimate. Of course it would be more if you are planning to go to mars and beyond.
-
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!
Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*
Best,
Shell
Surprisingly, a little better with small end flat.
Super!! Thanks so very much for that run monomorfic, you nailed it. It's what I've been seeing and wasn't sure if it was a measure fluke or my numbers were off.
My Very Best,
Shell
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1363096;image)
-
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
-
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
^This
While I appreciate your discretion, man, are you killing us (me)! At the same time, these little hints are appreciated.
Keep up the good work!
-
On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
About 500 kg worth of solar panels, I would estimate. Of course it would be more if you are planning to go to mars and beyond.
ATK puts a 100kW space based system at just under 1000kg.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/space-systems/space-components/solar-arrays/docs/FS007_15_OA_3862%20UltraFlex.pdf
That's with state of the art triple junction cells. I think I recall GEO sats have power capability well in excess of 2kw for at least couple decades.
-
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
OK I Understand. Does it help if I say, "It works." Although that statement needs to be backed up at a high level.
Truthfully, I'm not ready to release data yet, although it is good data I still have more testing and configurations to do. I will say I am chasing a very different theory or a mix of theories and it's all good.
Hang in there, please. I'm working as hard as I can with what I have.
Best,
Shell
-
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.
****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?****
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways). Cheers :) FL
-
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.
****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?****
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways). Cheers :) FL
According to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
-
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.
****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?****
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways). Cheers :) FL
The flat end was more a "gut" feeling from 50 years of smelling soldering flux. :o If you're just a little past cutoff in the small end it forms its own spherical wall in the way it rounds off the cutoff. Also, it's a platform for other hardware I'm including in my build.
I can't speak for TT as I know he has faced some severe challenges in health and build. I wish him luck in both endeavors.
No, I have no idea of who will be publishing NASA's EW data. Dr. Rodal never wrote anything here that wasn't spot on or incorrect information, he's very detailed in that way. Personally, I believe his post that EagleWork's has seen something and is publishing it carries a lot of weight.
If it's above a Photon Rocket as he posted it is indeed great news fo the team at NASA and EagleWorks and the rest of us.
Comparison to a Photon Rocket...
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, for example, a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket, the force per power input is as follows:
Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput = 1/c = 0.003336 mN/kW
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation.
It might mean new physics or a better understanding of physics is needed.
My Best,
Shell
-
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.
****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?****
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways). Cheers :) FL
According to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
From their web page....
The World's #1 Source for Aerospace Information
AIAA is the premier provider of information on aerospace technology, engineering, and science. Our titles document the most important developments and the latest research in air and space history. Our publications make the exchange of technical knowledge and information possible among aerospace professionals. For general information on AIAA publications, becoming an AIAA author, and more, click here.
-
ATK puts a 100kW space based system at just under 1000kg.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/space-systems/space-components/solar-arrays/docs/FS007_15_OA_3862%20UltraFlex.pdf
That's with state of the art triple junction cells. I think I recall GEO sats have power capability well in excess of 2kw for at least couple decades.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/ultrathin-solar-cells-for-lightweight-and-flexible-applications-
They are getting better all the time.
-
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted/removed from this site? (and by whom?) : (
-
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted? (and by whom?) : (
What are you talking about?
-
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted? (and by whom?) : (
What report are your referring to? The original post here remains unchanged.., and it appears to be the source of all current speculation. As Shell pointed out Dr. Rodal's information in the past has been reliable... So perhaps the speculation is more when it will hit the street, than if...
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). :) Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
-
Shell, looks like you are getting some love over on the "other" forum. Not sure if you even visit there anymore, but thought I'd give you a heads up.
-
Not off my game, just getting conflicting reports about Dr. Rodal's report re the EWL paper soon to be published...that is was redacted or removed from this site. I did not know where is post was located, but y'all have straitened me out...it's still there, and I did locate it.
I 'spect nay-sayers are making false claims and surmise they believe that there are positive findings in the paper for the EM effect. (Will just have to wait for publication to see)
Thank you all for the info. :) FL
-
Just bumped into this one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY
published yesterday...
-
Shell, looks like you are getting some love over on the "other" forum. Not sure if you even visit there anymore, but thought I'd give you a heads up.
Thanks.
Honestly, I don't visit much. I'm not posting on here much either. The goal during these last few months has been on my builds and testing. We all want data but it takes time to get it.
Thank you all for your support, this is one heck of a group here.
My Best,
Shell
-
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted/removed from this site? (and by whom?) : (
FL I suppose what you are talking about is all of the various available news media articles that you are looking at that suggest Dr. Rodals' comment was deleted or removed. I think, it was only edited to remove the journal name and paper name which it is being published.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/31/0612233/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-peer-reviwed-paper-is-on-its-way
Where here it says.....
An independent scientist has confirmed that the paper by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories on achieving thrust using highly controversial space propulsion technology EmDrive has passed peer review, and will soon be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Dr Jose Rodal posted on the NASA Spaceflight forum -- in a now-deleted comment -- that the new paper will be entitled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" and is authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey." Rodal also revealed that the paper will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prominent journal published by the AIAA, which is one of the world's largest technical societies dedicated to aerospace innovations. Although Eagleworks engineer Paul March has posted several updates on the ongoing research to the NASA Spaceflight forum showing that repeated tests conducted on the EmDrive in a vacuum successfully yielded thrust results that could not be explained by external interference, those in the international scientific community who doubt the feasibility of the technology have long believed real results of thrust by Eagleworks would never see the light of day.
-
That was one of the big sources....thank you for putting it up: dementia not onboard yet, TG!
-
Here is the issue:
The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
But doesn't.
Fixed that for ya.
Not nice to quote my post and then add the last line I never wrote.
BTW maybe you should go here to listen to the man explain his theory:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY
-
Just bumped into this one...
*snip*
published yesterday...
So Mr Shawyer talks about the old side wall chestnut at the 08:42 mark... From memory, I'm not sure that he adds anything new to what was said previously?!
Anyone care to address his comments?
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
-
As a newbie, I'd like to ask, what is the central problem in getting these devices to work? Is it getting and keeping resonance? Has anyone here attained a large (10's to 100's milliNewtons) effect even briefly? Thanks.
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Nice to see the progress! Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration. So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)? Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period? (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Nice to see the progress! Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration. So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)? Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period? (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
Any chance you could rerun multiple times in this configuration? ;D
Maybe script up something to perform a 1 minute power on cycle every ~1.5 hours, and have it run overnight? :P
Ambient temperature monitoring within your plexiglass enclosure would also be nice to have.... maybe both above and below the expected thermal plume region?
BTW, you're doing a great job! (and staying objective) It's so easy to make suggestions when the suggester isn't doing any of the work, so please filter accordingly. ::)
-
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.
Thanks, that makes sense. This first run does seem quite intriguing. What I don't understand is how the vertical displacement (presumably caused by thermal effects) interrelates with the horizontal displacement. In other words, if there is thrust, then it would show up in the horizontal displacement regardless of the thermal effects manifested in the vertical displacement. Or maybe i'm completely clueless. ;)
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal. 8)
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal. 8)
Indeed, that would seem the case. But can thermal cause horizontal displacement at all? It would seem that thermal would only contribute to the vertical displacement but of course, I could be wrong.
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?
It eventually returns very close to its original position. On the order of tens of minutes. I expect I would need to record for 20+ minutes for this to be documented. I will attempt this soon.
-
I have a question for the professional physicists on the board:
If photons have a spin of 1, and two photons perfectly overlap in the 'right' way, do the individual spins of '1' superimpose / add up to create a point in space where spin is '2' ? I'm asking because the graviton is supposed to have a spin of '2' and no electric charge (which would technically be the case if two photons overlap 'destructively' at the same point in spacetime, eradicating any 'charge'/electric field component).
BR
CW
-
Monomorphic -
For some time we've been saying that apparent side-to-side motion of the frustrum might not be thrust, but might be caused by asymmetric vertical (possibly thermal) effects.
Can you exclude the reverse, ie that apparent vertical motion of the beam is caused by twisting due to horizontal movements of the frustrum? In particular, the movements vertically are very small - they are a completely different scale to the horizontal movements, which you've described earlier as comparable to the thickness of a sheet of paper. How large are the vertical movements just compared to thermal expansion of the pieces?
R.
-
reversing the emdrive orientation and running the same test should show whether the direction of the thrust changes. if it is due to electro magnetic effects interacting with the environment then the thrust should be in the same direction again?
-
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.
If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.
The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.
-
I don't know if im up to something, but i stumbled while reading a book about Fractals from James Gleick where he quoted a dicovery from a Dutch scientist called Christiaan Huygens. He observed synchronization of pendulum clocks, and he discovered that at some times they run in phase or in anti-phase due to vibrations trought walls or on a table.
I think that a similar behavour occurs also in a EM drive frustrum where the amplitude of the waves are truncated by the shape of the frustrum while the waves forced into sychronization phase. So the energy of the amplitude needs to escape somewhere when a wave goes into phase..
The power of the rf transmitter needs to go somewhere! So why not outside the frustrum? but not as wave but as a phase or anti phase synchronization event.
Im not a scientist, who juggles with Unruh theories or similar, but this is the idea what im coming up with.
-
reversing the emdrive orientation and running the same test should show whether the direction of the thrust changes. if it is due to electro magnetic effects interacting with the environment then the thrust should be in the same direction again?
I will run two more tests in the current configuration, and then reverse the orientation and run three more tests. Then I will move the emdrive into null position and run three tests. I won't have anymore test results until mid next week though - have other plans this weekend.
-
Interesting paper:
Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
V. CONCLUSIONS
I have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that
could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled
using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity.
Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen.
This could explain some recent results with interferometric setup obtained at NASA with a
resonator having the form of a box. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic
field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanation. From a physical
standpoint this could be a really breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering.
Then, I considered a frustum in the form of a truncated cone. I have shown that general
relativity introduce a large scale that makes all the effects really miniscule. For the frustum
I have shown that the gravitational effects can be described by a susceptibility multiplying
the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field inside the cavity. Due to this
particular geometry, it can be shown that the susceptibility can be made significant by a
proper choice of the geometrical parameters of the cavity yielding thrust without violating
any law of physics. This effect could amenable to observation with a proper interferometric
setup.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Jose Rodal for a significant exchange of points of view on these
results that made possible a deeper understanding of them in aerospace applications.
-
Interesting paper:
Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
...
I have posted an update few minutes ago at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1577139#msg1577139. I think this could like you more.
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
-
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/rumored-emdrive-paper-suggests-the-controversial-thruster-actually-works/
Update (2 September): It has been confirmed to IFLScience by the AIAA that a paper on the EmDrive is being published in December 2016. They said:
“The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Journal of Propulsion and Power has accepted for publication a paper in the area of electromagnetic propulsion. However, it is AIAA’s policy not to discuss the details of peer reviewed papers before/until they are published. We currently expect the paper in question to be published in December 2016.”
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
What does that mean in plain English?
-
I have a question for the professional physicists on the board:
If photons have a spin of 1, and two photons perfectly overlap in the 'right' way, do the individual spins of '1' superimpose / add up to create a point in space where spin is '2' ? I'm asking because the graviton is supposed to have a spin of '2' and no electric charge (which would technically be the case if two photons overlap 'destructively' at the same point in spacetime, eradicating any 'charge'/electric field component).
BR
CW
Addition of angular momentum is possible in a number of combinations of photons. In QED, in a Gaussian distribution, there is evidence of photons "bunching" into pairs and it's a prediction of the theory. However, there is no evidence for gravitons. They are a fiction, created to quantize GR in the same way we quantize EM. GR does not work this way, as many have realized and have moved on from this fiction.
-
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."
-
Interesting paper:
Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
Inscrutable math...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Jose Rodal for a significant exchange of points of view on these
results that made possible a deeper understanding of them in aerospace applications.
The good doctor has been using his abacus to good effect!
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
What does that mean in plain English?
Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.
Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
-
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."
hmmmm...
very unfortunate quote, if you ask me, as such -dare I say - rather populist remark has a very high boomerang tendency...
I understand it comes from years of buildup frustration, of tedious swimming against the main current of scientific consensus, but such a reaction doesn't help as far as credibility goes.
If the EM effect is indeed acknowledged, through experiments/peer review, then R.Shawyer deserves all the credit he can muster, but the backstabbing is - although understandable - really unnecessary...
-
Understandable? Maybe, but we do bear responsibility for explaining our concepts clearly. Both the student and the teacher ( or two colleagues ) have to be up to the task. I understand it is not always easy to address your critics but it never serves you well to ignore direct questions on or challenges to your theory.
-
Sawyer never had just a theory through, he had a prototype machine that produced thrust without expelling anything, everyone should have spent there time challenging his claims that produce thrust by building their own, instead of nitpicking over his papers. If they had done may we be a lot further down this road.
An many people just simply dismissed his engine just because it broke one of their gold rules rather than actually bothering to look at it.
One physicist even said it would take his students less than a day to prove it didn't work.
Even if it doesn't work it taken Nasa a couple of years to prove it doesn't work and having also stood up to numerous other tests carried out by experience engineers before hand.
-
Hi everybody!
An interesting paper which put the problem on the right frame is the Wave-Particle Duality. The paper suggests the relativistic Energy as discovered by Einstein does not address the wave-particle interaction. A new relativistic expression that is absolutely compatible with Einstein's Relativity shows the way to the stars and could be verified during EM interactions (acceleration within an electrostatic field):
Paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1604.0039v3.pdf (Page 15 and 11)
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
What does that mean in plain English?
Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.
Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
Thank you. So it could hover a vehicle it was attached to?
-
Sawyer never had just a theory through, he had a prototype machine that produced thrust without expelling anything, everyone should have spent there time challenging his claims that produce thrust by building their own, instead of nitpicking over his papers. If they had done may we be a lot further down this road.
An many people just simply dismissed his engine just because it broke one of their gold rules rather than actually bothering to look at it.
One physicist even said it would take his students less than a day to prove it didn't work.
Even if it doesn't work it taken Nasa a couple of years to prove it doesn't work and having also stood up to numerous other tests carried out by experience engineers before hand.
It works.
As now reported on many sites, other than NSF, Dr Rodal quoted the EW tests reported consistent specific thrust of 1.2mN/kWrf. You can read the details below.
Peer-Reviewed Paper On EmDrive To Be Published In December
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/rumored-emdrive-paper-suggests-the-controversial-thruster-actually-works/
-
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
What does that mean in plain English?
Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.
Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
-
Thank you. So it could hover a vehicle it was attached to?
Please read what Roger has stated here:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716
-
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?
All we know is what Paul shared.
Would assume EW have done further work since then.
-
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."
That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.
That is VERY exciting!
What does that mean in plain English?
Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.
Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
That sounds like an implied Lorentz Force-esque relationship between whatever the EM Drive effect is and input power.
-
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.
-
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.
This is true. The utility of the effect is going to depend greatly on which scaling relationships it obeys.
-
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?
-
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.
This is true. The utility of the effect is going to depend greatly on which scaling relationships it obeys.
Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?
Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.
I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.
-
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?
Not a bad idea, really. Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer. The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.
-
Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?
Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.
I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.
Don't take me for gospel, I'm just a watcher reporting on what he understands of what he sees (which is a lot less than I'd like). :-X
-
Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?
Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.
I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.
Don't take me for gospel, I'm just a watcher reporting on what he understands of what he sees (which is a lot less than I'd like). :-X
Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.
This is moving on social media but the view seems to be it will invalidate it, shame people are forgetting that part of the abstract was already posted apparently showing it does work.
-
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.
A consistent 1.2mN/kWrf is the value stated by Dr. Rodal.
Roger's Flight Thruster, his 3rd design. delivered 326mN/kWrf as attached.
-
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?
All we know is what Paul shared.
Would assume EW have done further work since then.
It's been a very interesting pleasure to watch what has unfolded here here Phil. You have taken a lot of heat over the last 24 months or so.
When the article comes out in full we'll see the complete story and we are all guaranteed to learn something.
-
Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.
I'm excited, but I'm not qualified to say whether or not you should be excited.
-
Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.
I'm excited, but I'm not qualified to say whether or not you should be excited.
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.
-
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.
Coincidence.
-
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.
Coincidence.
Yep but lucky.
And I was somewhat joking above.
-
I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.
DARPA interested in the EW paper? I doubt it. DARPA, Boeing, USAF & NSSO were all involved in awarding SPR the 2008 contract to build the Flight Thruster.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Once SPR delivered it to Boeing, it went dark. And yes it did work. One day that whole story will be told.
Here is a part of the story as told to me by Roger:
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government
and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007.
End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is
use on a test satellite.
December 2008.
Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with
Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China.
All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
-
If it can be established that the effect exists, I am not worried about using it. Any first device ever could be improved by a lot. Once the effect is proven there will be research money for improving on it.
-
If it can be established that the effect exists, I am not worried about using it. Any first device ever could be improved by a lot. Once the effect is proven there will be research money for improving on it.
Doesn't it ask a bigger and more fundamental question that even working at this low level means somewhere our understanding of physics is faulty?
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
How can I say this?
Roger offered to help EW. For whatever reason that never happened and EW reinvented a non physically tunable flat end plate design approach (using a dielectric) that Roger abandoned in 2002. From his 2nd unit, The Demonstrator, and forward all designs are dielectric free and use shaped end plates.
His 1st Experimental dielectric design, with twin physical frustum tuning systens only achieved 18.8mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html
The 2nd Demonstrator, dielectric free, with spherical end plates achieved 214mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
3rd build, the Flight Thruster achieved 326mN/kWrf
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
See the progression?
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
-
You will all be happy to know, not, that you can expect another storm of ill informed commentary on this paper if the comments I am already seeing are at all illustrative.
I hope this isn't considered to OT but just wanted to give everyone fair warning for the next two or three months.
-
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?
Not a bad idea, really. Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer. The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.
Well, any takers, any objections? Aside from the measuring instruments which I lack this type of test seems to be in the cost range of 100 - 400$, liquid nitrogen and small superconductors are actually dirt cheap and DIYers fool around with those on youtube. And as far as I can tell there is no solid theory to calculate the efficient wavelength by the cavity dimensions so a test using a microwave oven magnetron on a cavity that small would be useful regardless of outcome. Or am I wrong?
-
In case anybody is interested here is the maggie Roger used in the Demonstrator EmDrive: GA4305
http://www.2450mhz.com/PDF/Manuals/930028%24.pdf
And guess what? He also had maggie temp driven freq drift issues causing thrust variance as the freq passed through frustum resonance.
I REALLY suggest to read this detailed engineering report several times. I read it 4 times and leaned something new on each read.
Any engineer who reads this report will have no doubt the device works as claimed.
-
How much does a superconducting drive magnify its effect?
-
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."
hmmmm...
very unfortunate quote, if you ask me, as such -dare I say - rather populist remark has a very high boomerang tendency...
I understand it comes from years of buildup frustration, of tedious swimming against the main current of scientific consensus, but such a reaction doesn't help as far as credibility goes.
If the EM effect is indeed acknowledged, through experiments/peer review, then R.Shawyer deserves all the credit he can muster, but the backstabbing is - although understandable - really unnecessary...
Insight is a precious gift, comprehension above the norm is a grave responsibility and well... if you solve the big one then, you get to choose how you use the megaphone that comes with it.
-
You will all be happy to know, not, that you can expect another storm of ill informed commentary on this paper if the comments I am already seeing are at all illustrative.
You do understand the EmDrive may replace all forms of propulsion?
No more 3, 2, 1, ignition.
No more launch pad explosions to report on.
No more noise.
No more fire.
No more wondering if it will explode.
No more firey reentries.
No more astronaut space training.
Your old grandmother & her cat can go into space.
Just a silent and gentle lift to space & back down.
Mars in 3-4 days? Sure as long as you can tolerate 1g thrust gravity all the way there or back.
It all changes.
Lots of companies will lose a lot of money.
Others will make a lot of money.
Told you 2016 is the year the EmDrive comes out of the dark.
-
How much does a superconducting drive magnify its effect?
Thrust Newtons = (2 Power Q DesignFactor) / c.
Copper frustum has Q 50,000.
Superconducting frustum has Q 1,000,000,000 or 20,000 times greater.
Q 50k = 0.4N/kWrf ~40g/kWrf thrust
Q 1b = 8,000N/kWrf ~0.8mt/kWrf thrust
-
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.
Coincidence.
Serendipity :D
-
Looks like the moderators on the "other" forum have come up with some new expectations for participants there
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/50vw0m/expectations_of_participants_in_the_remdrive/
maybe this is a good thing
-
So let's keep it civil here.
-
“The only way of discovering the limits
of the possible is to venture a little way
past them into the impossible.”
Arthur C. Clarke (Clarke's second law)
“In order to do the impossible, you must see the invisible”
David Murdock
]https://www.amazon.com/Aerospace-Reactionless-Propulsion-Gravity-Generator/dp/1530760534] (https://www.amazon.com/Aerospace-Reactionless-Propulsion-Gravity-Generator/dp/1530760534)
-
botched quotes
-
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
-
Is it just me or is the Nassikas Thruster II project giving thrust because of the second law of thermodynamics.. Warm ambient air near the wide end of the supercooled funnel is chilled, lower pressure from the chilling is making more air follow the path of least resistance. Isn't this why we need testing in a vacuum?
-
Is it just me or is the Nassikas Thruster II project giving thrust because of the second law of thermodynamics.. Warm ambient air near the wide end of the supercooled funnel is chilled, lower pressure from the chilling is making more air follow the path of least resistance. Isn't this why we need testing in a vacuum?
I don't know. But they did put the whole device into a foam box, and then strung the whole box up, to rule out that hypothesis, as I remember.
-
Engine thrust, T = 10 mN
Power consumption, P = 1 kW
Engine work time, t = 30 days
Satellite mass, m = 100 kg
Speed gain = (T/m) x t = 259.2 m/s
It appears that even with a thrust of 10 mN/kW a 100 kg satellite can increase its speed with 259.2 m/s per month (3.155 km/s per year) which is quite impressive.
Somebody here claims he obtained 85mN/kWrf. I do not know how much thrust he obtained per kW absorbed from the grid but it seems that more than 10mN/kW which means he is already in possession of a practical engine for small spacecrafts.
-
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?
Not a bad idea, really. Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer. The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.
Well, any takers, any objections? Aside from the measuring instruments which I lack this type of test seems to be in the cost range of 100 - 400$, liquid nitrogen and small superconductors are actually dirt cheap and DIYers fool around with those on youtube. And as far as I can tell there is no solid theory to calculate the efficient wavelength by the cavity dimensions so a test using a microwave oven magnetron on a cavity that small would be useful regardless of outcome. Or am I wrong?
They've actually done quite a bit of that on this thread over the past year or two. The general consensus seems to be that the smaller the drive, the higher the frequency required to achieve resonance, which most theories hold is necessary to achieve thrust. And the small end should always be slightly larger than the cuttoff frequency of the RF frequency being used.
In fact, The Traveler has created a detailed spreadsheet that will allow the user to input values for length, large diameter, small diameter, frequency, Q-factor and then predicts the thrust of the resulting drive. I'm not 100% sure this is his final version, but it's very interesting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iUnlaXzc0OFVvc00/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iUnlaXzc0OFVvc00/view)
Monomorphic has been creating virtual frustums and modeling TE mode shapes at various frequencies for quite awhile now: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511076#msg1511076 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511076#msg1511076)
The Baby EM Drive ran at 24 GHz: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive (https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive)
Anyway, my point is that there is information available to help calculate the appropriate frequency needed to achieve resonance within a given frustum.
-
Monomorphic and myself are in a small group of 5 active EmDrive builders that share data. Recently I shared the dimensions, mode and operating freq of the commercial S band thruster I'm developing.
To Monomohic's great skill he quickly modeled the frustum and confirmed it's mode & resonant freq. Which shows as Roger has said, it is not magic and these devices can be built as long as you follow the engineering pathway Roger has created.
Additionally Monomorphic is close as to how to properly excite such a high Q cavity to get 0.4N/kWrf results. See attached. From those images note how the guide wavelength gets longer as the diameter drops. Just as Roger shows in his theory talk, which is now on www.emdrive.com
No magic, just applied microwave enginerring that has existed for 65 years.
-
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
-
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time?
-
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time?
My 1st 2 commercial frustums are still being built. As long as they pass muster, they are sold.
What I did was to show there now exists others that possess the necessary engineering skills to take a few dimensions and successfully model a frustum design, verifying mode, freq & antenna design. Those that are willing to learn can master the necessary engineering skills to follow the pathway Roger has created.
Monomorphic now knows it works and joins the 4 others in our group that have all designed, built & successfully tested EmDrives. It is no longer about proving it works. That phase is over. It is now about understanding the necessary microwave and other engineering skills needed to built working EmDrives.
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
-
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this. :o :o :o
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.
But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine.
-
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this. :o :o :o
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.
But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine.
The internet goes nuts every week over something or the other. Even now it is past this hurdle, many, many hurdles still remain between a device on a lab table and us all flying around in hover cars whilst travelling to Proxima B for our holidays.
If I see one more article saying it doesn't need fuel. No it still needs electricity that for a space based vehicle would have to be generated the same old way by solar panels or RTG.
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.
So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.
So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
That wasn't quite my point. My point is to remove doubt for the sceptical peer reviewer they would need this kind of testing.
-
Does a truncated cone resonant cavity produce thrust if excited with ordinary sound?
The wavelength of sound with frequencies between 2kHz and 20kHz range from 17 cm to 1.7 cm so resonant cavities designed for microwaves in the domain 2.4 GHz - 24 GHz (12.5 cm and 1.25 cm) can also resonate if excited with tones generated by a computer.
I would be curious to know if a certain amount of thrust is obtained, if somebody already made the test or is willing to do it. Somebody who has already built an EMdrive has everything he needs. Just turn on a loudspeaker connected to the computer, adjust the frequency of the tone generated by it and put the loudspeaker in front of an EMdrive cavity which will resonate and maybe produce thrust.
-
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.
Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.
So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer.
-
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.
Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.
So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer.
You are correct this is not a forum to promote / sell commercial product. As I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales, I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.
-
Interesting Tweet from the guy who designed Dr. White's IXS Enterprise warp ship and IXS Clarke EmDrive ship:
Mark Rademaker (@yard2380) tweeted at 5:16 AM on Sat, Sep 03, 2016:
I received the paper in January 2016 from White, it was already a year in review by that time.
https://twitter.com/yard2380/status/771796415668449280?s=03
So the whole paper is in circulation. Wonder who may also have a copy?
-
I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales, I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.
You are like the Wright brothers in 1905 who were selling their plane but did not want to show it to anybody. Finally the aviation appeared in 1906 without their help and their first public demonstrations were done quite late in August 1908 in a moment when planes built by others were already able to fly for 20 minutes.
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Euh. I never implied it is "magic"...
My question was about the possible consequences of obtaining less force then projected/predicted.
As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.
This does not say i'm dismissing an EM effect, but that one should seriously question what part of the measured forces are due to a real EM effect.
As i said in the "other forum" i have my doubts about the linear scalability of the EM effect, in regards of the Q. I have a problem with the projection that going from a Q of ±5x10^4 to a Q of 5x10^10 (see supercooled Niobium cavities at CERN) will result in a force that is x1 000 000 times higher. The 1ton - flying car stuff...
The graph that R.Shawyer showed in his video (timeframe 12:48)is kinda misleading as it groups and bundles all kind of different tests (yang, dresden, nasa, shawyer, cannae, etc) and project them as if they all show a trend.
This is utterly wrong, because the huge differences between the actual experiments.
If you want to show a linear correlation between forces and Q, then you need to perform a test with the SAME setup and different Q values.
fe , you start with ambient temperature, then start gradually cooling in steps till you reach super cooling and /or change materials that dramatically impact the Q.
If you then still see a linear correlation, then yes, Q scales in a linear fashion.
The current argumentation based upon all those different tests is simply premature (at best). Maybe the EM drive does indeed scale linearly, but that is NOT the way to demonstrate it and it does not help for credibility.
In case your wondering, I'm trying to help. :)
-
To be open here are the data I shared with Monomorphic:
All calcs in air and in m
0.3180 Big End diameter
0.4934 Big End radius
0.1590 Small End diameter
0.2467 Small End radius
0.2467 Axial end plate spacing / frustum side wall length
0.77339 DF
88,150 Q
2.4500 GHz resonance in TE013
2.2987 GHz small end cutoff
45.4mN Force at 100W forward
Again here are Monomorphic's results as attached, which shows the engineering works as the data was from my EmDrive design spreadsheet, also attached, to FEKO.
So there is no Magic to build an EmDrive. The data to do so it out there and I have posted most of it here on this forum.
If you look at the central graphic in my spreadsheet screen shot, note the modeled increasing guide wavelength as the diameter narrows (big end left, small end right). Exactly what FEKO modeled AND as per Roger's theory predictions.
I like it when the numbers match up!
-
As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.
There is more to the Yang story than has been made public. Suffice it to say my info is her results were independently verified by another Chinese lab, plus she and others are hard at work on a Chinese superconducting unit.
Ever wonder about that guy who came on here, claimed Yang had retired and was writing poetry as she was denied further funding? You think that just maybe he was a plant to discredit her work and when that did not work, the next "Yang" paper was released to try to bury her results?
The reality is the EW device results, while positive thanks to a really good engineering effort by team EW, are from a dielectric frustum design that was abandoned in 2002 due to low thrust results. I can share that had they increased the dielectric thickness, the generated force would have been in the other direction.
Not speculation.
You may be right, you may be wrong..
There is currently no possibility to really asses the truth behind that, so.. it is and remains pure speculation...
I keep en open mind and am well aware that industrial espionage and contra espionage are a daily reality, but at the same time I'm careful not to step into the wild conspiracy theory pitfall...
Let's keep it to...speculation, will you? Consequently it does cast a doubt about the validity of yang's results.
Besides, if you connect the dots as they are, including Yang's result, you don't see a linear scaling but a flattening exponential scale...
A lot of Shawyer's drawings and graphs give me the uneasy/uncomfortable feeling of being forced into storytelling, rather then an objective representation of experimental data. They feel more like a sales pitch graph then a scientific illustration. Again it is all about credibility and the sub-conscience ability to "feel" something doesn't add up...
As said before, if you really want a scientific illustration on how Q scales linearly, use 1 setup and keep changing the Q values (by gradually increasing cooling, fe)
Piling up different tests to enforce a story of linear scalability sets off a few alarms in my head. Cant help it, sorry...
and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way...
and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...
-
and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...
Try the attached for scaling.
BTW the one that doesn't seem to line up is from the 1st Cannae superconducting unit. so maybe not a true EmDrive result but it does show their thrust increased as the Q increased.
Then read all the experimental data from these 2 reports. Each has heaps of tests and reveals a lot of valuable engineering data that was never made public before.
-
Can anyone speculate if its true that the exhaust is photon pairs, why not flood the chamber with more photons say with a laser or two? Also would it be possible to make the frustum out of transparent aluminum? Lastly. If electromagnetic radiation can push against the "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" or photon pairs, then doesn't it follow that other higher or lower intensities of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation could modify the effect?
-
Interesting but...
notice how at the top left side, the scales goes up to..... 180mN...
I'm not going to do it for real, but scale that image up to 1 ton (as projected in a flying car emdrive), or 9806N, so bringing it to the same unit grade gives me... 9 806 000 mN
That means the idea of linear extrapolation of Q is based upon 0.0018% of the total projected force range.
Don't you think that is a bit premature?
To give you a visual clue : if the whole graph, with its 180mN scale, was 1 pixel high, the extrapolation towards 1 Ton force would be 556 pixels high...
A daring move, i must say...
The same can be said of the Q range varying from 5x10^3 to 5x10^4 from the real world experiments, that gets extrapolated to 5x10^10.
How can you extrapolate to 6 magnitudes without any other in between reference point, except the handful that lay in the first 0.0001% range of that Q spectrum?
If there were reference points at 10^6 or 10^7, then yes, linear extrapolation would be more credibly.
For me, as till today there is NO data that allows me to accept you can linearly scale up to 1 ton.
Such a conclusion based upon currently available data is overly optimistic and will most probably backfire.
I suggest you get some data with Q's at 100k or even Q at 1mil, before making claims of potential 1 ton thrust levels at magnitudes of 10^10...
At best, what you have here is a graph that more or less shows a linearity up to a Q of around 10^5 and a prognosis for 400mN.
That you can achieve 0.4N/kW, that is something I'm willing to accept based upon that graph...
but 1 ton? you'll have to show it to me first ...
oh, forgot to mention that the second graph is a force/input power relation, not a (specific) thrust/Q graph,
so the relation with the Q is kinda blurry
-
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize
A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.
If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.
-
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9
I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.
1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)
None of this is new.
-
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize
A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.
If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.
You are correct. Roger deserves a Nobel as a very big apology from the physics community.
-
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize
A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.
If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.
110% Agreed for the Nobel price, on condition it gets further validated.
-
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9
I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.
1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)
None of this is new.
Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.
You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.
Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment.
-
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9
I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.
1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)
None of this is new.
Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.
You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.
Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment.
Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper?
-
Does a truncated cone resonant cavity produce thrust if excited with ordinary sound?
The wavelength of sound with frequencies between 2kHz and 20kHz range from 17 cm to 1.7 cm so resonant cavities designed for microwaves in the domain 2.4 GHz - 24 GHz (12.5 cm and 1.25 cm) can also resonate if excited with tones generated by a computer.
I would be curious to know if a certain amount of thrust is obtained, if somebody already made the test or is willing to do it. Somebody who has already built an EMdrive has everything he needs. Just turn on a loudspeaker connected to the computer, adjust the frequency of the tone generated by it and put the loudspeaker in front of an EMdrive cavity which will resonate and maybe produce thrust.
I still think that if the whole thing is as simple as resonating waves in and asymmetrical reflective cavity and momentum transfer from those waves into that frustum, then yes, it very well might work... Of course, I got shot down a couple of months ago when I proposed the same thing :'(
I haven't heard about anyone trying though!
-
.......
Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper?
tbh, i have no idea...
I am , just as you, (im)patiently waiting for more news with absolutely no idea what the content will be of that peer review: positive? negative? inconclusive?
-
Hi All,
Just catching up on my reading this morning.
I see hand waving, posting test results from other groups and individuals and speculative theories as to how and why this drive may work. To me and this IMHO it boils down to a simple fact past hand waving. Advancement this EMDrive, Q-Thruster, EMTruster or even the WankerMobileDrive, real honest data is still king. Requiring you to roll up your shirt sleeves, shut off the phone, get off the computer, sit down in your lab, test and retest, again and again.
No amount of hand waving will replace the hard sweat and very repetitious testing called work that's needed to convince that this thing works. Fun to post you have the next big breakthrough in designing a force engine on paper, but you better be prepared to knuckle down and work hard to prove it in the lab. Even then you'll have critics, (even if works, or not).
Am I ready to say this force engine is ready to fly cars, no, Am I ready to say that this force engine will take us to Mars, no. Am I ready to say that it deserves the best testing I can do as a DYIer, yes.
Still testing all the theories I can and using one drive to do it. This is my 4th test bed and 4th drive (My first drive had too many holes in it :o). I have advanced to where the test bed and drive should provide insights and good data.
I'll leave with this. Then I need to get to work.
My current drive incorporates and or can test one at a time or in a combination.
Dr. Woodward's and Dr. Heidi Fearn's Mach effect. B-fields and PZTs and Caps
Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster). Dielectrics
Roger Shawyer's EMDrive basic theory. Naked internal drive
notsosureofit Hypothesis. All configs
Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory. All configs
Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory A mix of several
Paul March mentioned something I read, that the effects seen by EagleWorks might be both sides of the same coin. Smart man I thought. After mulling it around I drew this idea (pic attached). I even posted these comments.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1539804#msg1539804
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1548562#msg1548562
My Best,
Shell
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.
So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
As far as I'm concerned, if you show a video of the EM drive in a rotary configuration that is accelerating, aka Roger's video but hopefully for more rotations, then I would be pretty convinced, and would probably even want to buy one (depending on the cost, of course).
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
-
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
Cannae tug design, as attached, quotes 26N from 40Wrf at 50 MHZ or 650N/kWrf.
Note lower freq = bigger cavity = higher Q = higher thrust per Wrf.
Of course higher Q = longer 5 x TC cavity charge time = more kWh of energy needed to fully charge the cavity and to drive the thrust generation effect.
Not Magic, just smart EmDrive engineering.
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I think there is also a question of scale here. At the micro Newton level of effects reported by EW and Tajmar there is unquestionably a very high bar for experimental conditions/control required. However, at the level now being reported by monomorphic, et al I am not sure that level of rigour is as needed.
I would love to see, say, monomorphic's rig with a battery powered RF source and also possibly, as someone earlier suggested, sealed and with a small vacuum pump to definitively eliminate gross jetting, thermals, etc. If that were achieved, then, for the level of thrust monomorphic is reporting I think anything else is probably chasing unicorns.
Of course, that is what referees may require for their publication... :D
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
How can I say this?
Roger offered to help EW. For whatever reason that never happened and EW reinvented a non physically tunable flat end plate design approach (using a dielectric) that Roger abandoned in 2002. From his 2nd unit, The Demonstrator, and forward all designs are dielectric free and use shaped end plates.
His 1st Experimental dielectric design, with twin physical frustum tuning systens only achieved 18.8mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html (http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html)
The 2nd Demonstrator, dielectric free, with spherical end plates achieved 214mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html (http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html)
3rd build, the Flight Thruster achieved 326mN/kWrf
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html (http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html)
See the progression?
Having thought about this I would have to say that this is actually a really, really important validation of the phenomena. That is, there is a learning curve to this technology, multiple independent investigators are all climbing up that learning curve with ever increasing levels of thrust.
This is, in my view, really, really key.
Now, from a science perspective as opposed to a pragmatic engineering perspective there are also important/essential refinements to the experimental design of these rigs and that is what MAY some day get some of this work published with more improvements and unicorn chasing.
But man, that learning curve really says to me that this is a very real phenomena that we are just starting to grapple with.
-
Build update,
My 2 spherical aluminum thrusters should be ready for testing at the fabricators end Oct. If OK will return with the 2 thrusters, 4 x 100W Rf amps and a few other bits & pieces. So still hopeful of releasing a video of the rotary test rig spinning under acceleration from 50mN (5g) of thrust in 2016. There is still a lot of work to do, I may not make 2016 with the video but if I don't, will post the latest build photos.
When the rotary test rig is up and spinning I WILL POST VIDEOS.
Might build a symmetrical rotary rig with the 2 thruster on opposite sides of the rig to generate 100mN (10g) of thrust.
Next stage is designing in integrated 4 x 250Wrf smart modules and to drive the thrusters with 1kW of phase synced Rf via 4 couplers to achieve 0.5N (50g) of thrust in a single thruster module that only needs Dc power applied to generate thrust.
If anybody wishes to run the numbers here they are again:
All calcs in air and in m
0.3180 Big End diameter
0.4934 Big End radius
0.1590 Small End diameter
0.2467 Small End radius
0.2467 Axial end plate spacing / frustum side wall length
0.77339 DF
88,150 Q
2.4500 GHz resonance in TE013
2.2987 GHz small end cutoff
45.4mN Force at 100W forward
Again here are Monomorphic's results as attached, which shows the engineering works as the data was from my EmDrive design spreadsheet, also attached, to FEKO.
So there is no Magic to build an EmDrive. The data to do so it out there and I have posted most of it here on this forum.
Should point out no one is funding this other than myself.
-
This thread is for a technical discussion of EM Drive and it will not be dominated by any one person.
It is not for armwaving. It is not for marketing. We will remove such posts.
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget.
-
I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget.
Which is pretty sad given the giant wastes in government spending elsewhere... and yet we have highly emotional people running around the Internet screaming at how wasteful this tiny effort is.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c)
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c)
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
You could always wait for the paper to be published before jumping to conclusions.
Anything that doesn't come from Dr Rodal I am dubious about in relation to this paper. Why do you think even he deleted the little he did post because it could give the wrong impression if taken out of context.
Anyone who has seen the paper should respect the process and keep quiet.
-
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference! Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon! Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.
So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?
-
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference! Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon! Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)
History shows Roger originally excited in TMxyz modes but abandoned them for TE01x, with TE013 being the preferred mode.
Why EW excited in TM212 is unknown but clearly they found resonance there. Maybe it was the most isolated from nearby modes and would stop their freq control system from locking to a nearby mode?
-
Traveller, re TM212, in EWL's frustum with HDPE mounted in the top, their test data was/is as follows 91.2 micro N/16.9 Watts, TM212, frequency 1.9326 GHz, 5.4 mN/kW. Perhaps X_Ray will perform a sim for us...I'll ask him. Despite arguments about Roger's theory, it appears many DIYers are building for TE013 or TE012... I don't recall for sure but I think Monomophics's wedge is TE013. If not, I'll be straitened out shorty. :). Going to PM to "spreche mit X_Ray jetzt" Ciao PS: attached is sim of NASA's frustum TE012 at 1.8804 GHz..2.6 Watts.
Two Dipole antennae placed equal distant in bottom, not just one on the side.
-
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
From what has been posted here it seems that the EW paper was submitted possibly a year or more ago. If so, it represents where they were quite a while back. Perhaps they have made progress since then as have the DIY folks here.
-
@FL
This is what I get using FEKO.
All this pics show the E component of the field. The antenna was a magnetic dipole 34.3mm from the bottom at the sidewall. Its orientation is equal to a vertical aligned loop antenna.
The result is similar to the EW comsol calculations (lower pic)
-
.../...
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.
I hope they could afford to spend the humongous amount of money (sarcasm) of the 6 copper coils and 3 current generators it gets to build a basic 3 axis Helmholtz coil "cube", and finally characterize quantitatively the "effect" as a function of ambient DC magnetic field, therefore proving beyond doubt that the system is not just an electromagnetic compas. And this would be much much better than rotating the experiment 180° (given the sensitivity to tilt, the chance to rotate some magnetic material with it etc... One really want's to see a purely solid state way to change ambient DC magnetic field with all other aspects untouched)
Why go to the trouble of a vacuum chamber to eliminate the "thermal engine" component if the interactions with ambient magnetic field as a stator are not characterized ? Only declarations of good will such as "it was mitigated", "it was greatly reduced", "the permanent magnet nearby was removed", "when reversed it should do this or that", "all wires are twisted", "it is battery powered", "and so on..." would be a great disappointment given the relative ease with which it can be done to characterize the coupling. Reduction by design of sources of error is good but however good it is never good enough to trust blindly. Quantitative characterization of the systematics (especially known ones) is a basic prerequisite of the validity of results, otherwise interpretations, however smart, are shot in the fog. Failure to do so would seriously cast doubt on the ability or urge of the team to get to the bottom of it, IMHO.
BTW, I'm not aware of any experiment so far, academic nor "amateur", with an output plot "effect vs DC ambient magnetic field". This would be a world first. Any taker ?
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.
So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?
If he read and quoted from the paper, why would he not have stated such? The only thing he links to is this forum and previous articles.
And don't give this article any gravitas because it has "Forbes" at the top of the page. Note the disclaimer "Opinions formed by Forbes contributors are their own” and under his bio "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer". (Emphasis mine).
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of.
Thanks for the link.
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
-
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.
We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.
If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time.
-
...
Thanks for the link.
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
Of course no. In any way. Brans-Dicke theory is known since '60 as a serious competitor of general relativity. This is constrained through cosmological measurements and I expect agreement at that range of distances. Inside a cavity, with a strong e.m. fields, things can change significantly. The breakthrough here would already be the proof of validity of the Brans-Dicke theory in this way.
-
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.
We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.
If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time.
If it does work I am confident an exhaust of some type will be found. I really don't think it's all that different from anything that it breaks the rule that to put it bluntly you stick energy in one side & thrust comes out the other side. All that's different is this might be the first 'quantum' drive.
-
I am done with sims for different antenna orientations of the brady-cone with HDPE disc, optimized for both TE01 and TM21.
The .avi added below shows a frequency sweep with the antenna optimized for TE01. Due to this data I fully understand the problems to excite TE012 @ high Q.
Edit:
I have updated the pic since I realized that there was a mistake for the mode attribution.
-
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 0.3111 0.5475 14.78 extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz 1.9367 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.00 899"
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
Addendum: So my correction came in just after X_Ray's sims with different antenna positions. Indeed, X_Ray, very reveling!!! Thank you for that X_Ray!
-
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 0.3111 0.5475 14.78 extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz 1.9367 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.00 899"
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
No TM212 was right. Please take a look at the wall currents... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578225#msg1578225
although EW used TM211 to describe this mode in their (first)report. In fact there are additional lobes inside the HDPE and under the line that means p=2, therefore TM212.
The data published on http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results is correct in this regard!
-
I have not seen anything in the Forbes article that refers to any new finding. In fact the article is even-handed and points out other peer reviewed papers that were later retracted after being proven false. I assume the following papers that are mentioned in the article were all retracted:
quoted from recent Forbes article
"
Does it mean the science is correct, the effect is real and that physics is broken? Consider that peer-reviewed journals publish all sorts of results that later turn out to be spurious, including:
the faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable,
the existence of the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb, which turned out to not exist,
and the existence of a new LHC particle at 750 GeV, whose signal went away with more data.
"
end of quote
-
I have not seen anything in the Forbes article that refers to any new finding. In fact the article is even-handed and points out other peer reviewed papers that were later retracted after being proven false. I assume the following papers that are mentioned in the article were all retracted:
quoted from recent Forbes article
"
Does it mean the science is correct, the effect is real and that physics is broken? Consider that peer-reviewed journals publish all sorts of results that later turn out to be spurious, including:
the faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable,
the existence of the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb, which turned out to not exist,
and the existence of a new LHC particle at 750 GeV, whose signal went away with more data.
"
end of quote
That last example is poor as I don't believe any of the multiple papers concerning that were ever peer reviewed, if for no other reason lack of time.
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
I was thinking of a solution to eliminating the earths magnetic field from experiments. One I liked earlier and I can't find the quote was using the 3 axis Helmholtz coils.
I was thinking of another solution that might be possible is to enclose the EM drive and apparatus in soft iron. That is a soft iron box is attached to the EM drive it self and moves with it on the pendulum and any magnetic field generated is contained inside the box. Now to eliminate interaction with earths magnetic field we can use soft iron to enclose the entire pendulum which should shield the inside. I was hoping it should effectively shield the the em-drive it self from the outside fields. I ran some simulations to show how two iron boxes can shield interaction of two separate magnetic fields below.
This seems to be on the same thought process so I added this link: http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magshield.htm quote from link, "What you'll find is that only steel and iron will work as a shield. If it is very thin, it's effectiveness is decreased. If you place more layers of the shield between the magnet and the probe, it will be more effective (or thicker pieces of material)."
changed the shielded image to better illustrate my point
-
This is what TM212 looks like *without dialectric insert*.
-
Jeez, I go on vacation for three days, and while I'm gone, the global press goes wild over a single post on this subthread, which is buried in a speculative thread, inside a teeny tiny tech forum that lives off to one side of the Internet. Again!!!
It's a helluva important topic being silently followed all the time by people who don't post, but who are press members (and bots). Please use solid judgement on this thread friends.
...and I'm thrilled to be a part of it.
-
To those playing with dielectrics, may I refer you to the best paper on the subject, giving all the frustum dimensions, modes and even the dielectric resonator model and manufacturer plus a detailed explanation of how the dielectric resonator was tuned (position adjusted). Also note the big end plate was also adjustable.
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.
Finally the overall electrical length of the thruster must be a multiple of e/2 where
e is the effective wavelength of the thruster. This effective wavelength will equate
to different values of physical length throughout the waveguide assembly.
The overall geometry was defined by building a mathematical model of the thruster
based on an Excel spreadsheet. The physical length was divided into 0.5mm sections
and the guide wavelength calculated for each section. The electrical length for that
section was calculated and the summation of the section electrical lengths calculated.
Thus variations of diameters, lengths and er could be modelled, with the target of
achieving an overall electrical length equal to ne/2.
The model also allowed the operation to be modelled in TE11 and TE12 modes, the
nearest unwanted modes. The design was optimised to avoid the possibility of any
unwanted mode operation.
Doing all this achieved a specific force of 18.8mN/kW.
Once you have read the 1st report a few times, as each time you may learn a bit more, you can then start on the excellent technical report on the construction and early static testing of the Demonstrator EmDrive.
Folks this is how EmDrive engineering 101 starts.
-
Jeez, I go on vacation for three days, and the global press goes wild over a single post on this subthread while Im gone. Again!
It's a helluva important topic being silently followed all the time by people who don't post, but who are press members (and bots). Please use solid judgement on this thread friends.
...and I'm thrilled to be a part of it.
We've all been Rodal'd!
-
With the peer review paper coming in december, its easy to be overenthusiastic about the em drive.
Nothing wrong about the initial idea, but as Roger Shawyer stated very clearly: This device can be potentially dangerous! great fun, but you need to follow the safety rules. The last thing anyone wants are electocuted corpses in a basement..
-
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?
-
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?
In space all that is needed is to shield the EmDrive from the sun and it will cool to a very low temperature with no auxiliary cooling needed. Cannae plan to use this form of cooling on their thrusters.
http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes
COOLING
The 5 thrusting cavities are cooled by radiative cooling to deep space. The maximum design temperature of cavity operation is 75 K. The cavities and structural elements around the cavities are coated with a high emissivity black finish. At design power, the thruster cavities receive a combined 73 watts of phase-locked RF power. This power is almost entirely consumed as ohmic heating in the walls of the cavities. The cavities continually radiate this heat to deep space.
The radiating surface area of the thruster section of the probe is approximately 90 square meters. The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters. When the cavities radiate more than 73 watts of thermal energy, the operating temperature of the cavities drops below 75 K, reducing the radiative power of the cooling mechanism. The system will reach a natural equilibrium temperature that radiates all ohmic heating from the cavity walls. This equilibrium temperature will be below the 75 K maximum design temperature. Operating temperatures below 75 K will improve the surface resistance characteristics of the YBCO and improve the power-to-thrust performance of the propulsion system.
This radiative cooling system is passive. There are no moving parts to wear out or malfunction. This ensures that the cooling system operational life is sufficient to meet the design lifetime of the probe.
The smaller Cannae Drive cavities are operated intermittently to control the yaw, pitch, and roll of the probe. Cooling requirements on these cavities is minimal compared to the cooling load on the thrusting cavities. The small cavities in the probe also use passive radiative cooling (to deep space) to maintain operating temperature at or below 75 K.
EmDrive Engineering 101.
-
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?
In space all that is needed is to shield the EmDrive from the sun and it will cool to a very low temperature with no auxiliary cooling needed. Cannae plan to use this form of cooling on their thrusters.
http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes
COOLING
The 5 thrusting cavities are cooled by radiative cooling to deep space. The maximum design temperature of cavity operation is 75 K. The cavities and structural elements around the cavities are coated with a high emissivity black finish. At design power, the thruster cavities receive a combined 73 watts of phase-locked RF power. This power is almost entirely consumed as ohmic heating in the walls of the cavities. The cavities continually radiate this heat to deep space.
The radiating surface area of the thruster section of the probe is approximately 90 square meters. The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters. When the cavities radiate more than 73 watts of thermal energy, the operating temperature of the cavities drops below 75 K, reducing the radiative power of the cooling mechanism. The system will reach a natural equilibrium temperature that radiates all ohmic heating from the cavity walls. This equilibrium temperature will be below the 75 K maximum design temperature. Operating temperatures below 75 K will improve the surface resistance characteristics of the YBCO and improve the power-to-thrust performance of the propulsion system.
This radiative cooling system is passive. There are no moving parts to wear out or malfunction. This ensures that the cooling system operational life is sufficient to meet the design lifetime of the probe.
The smaller Cannae Drive cavities are operated intermittently to control the yaw, pitch, and roll of the probe. Cooling requirements on these cavities is minimal compared to the cooling load on the thrusting cavities. The small cavities in the probe also use passive radiative cooling (to deep space) to maintain operating temperature at or below 75 K.
EmDrive Engineering 101.
Cryogenic Engineering involves taking into account cryogenic losses, which does not appear to be explicitly accounted for in the above write-up:
A) Passive technology involves losses of cryogenics, which accumulate with time
18% loss for 6 months in LEO using passive technology according to NASA Ames Cryogenic Fluid Management, using current State of the Art
<<current State of the Art (SOA) for cryo-propellant storage is a loss rate of 3%/month in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) using passive technology. Advances in passive thermal control technology might reduce losses to 1%/month, still an unacceptable rate for a 2+ year mission to Mars. By using cryocoolers to balance the entire parasitic and internally generated heat loads in the cryo-tank, no propellant will be lost, resulting in a Zero Boil Off (ZBO) system, and eliminating the need for oversized tanks and extra propellant. Each pound of propellant tank mass saved is directly tradable for payload mass.>>
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/technology-onepagers/cryogenic-fluid-management.html
NOTICE: The claimed advantage of not having to exhaust propellant in this design is compensated by the loss of expensive Ne cryo-cooler This trade-off should be analyzed !
What is the economic justification for a superconducting EM Drive with Ne passive cooling, involving cryogenic losses of 3% a month, even if it would work?
Observe the tanks for Neon in Cannae's drawing: to be used as a cryogenic fluid below (neon is an expensive choice, why are they showing Ne ?)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1365807;image)
* the losses are very dependent on the temperature design, Ne is an expensive choice, neon is useful to cryogenically cool from 25 K to 40 K.
* if the temperature is 75-77K why are they showing Ne instead of N2 in their drawing?
* The fact that they are showing Ne instead of N2, sounds like their design is more like 25 K to 40 K than the above write-up discussion of 75 K
* the colder the temperature, the tougher the problem is.
* Cannae's reported superconducting tests involved suspending their resonant cavity inside a liquid helium-filled dewar. Liquid Helium's Lambda point (*) temperature is only 2 K - that is very cold in comparison with 75 K !!!
Compare these different temperatures (what they tested at, what they show in the drawing and what they discuss in the above write-up)
Using data from http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/917813 at Lawrence Livermore Lab:
He = 2.17 K (This is what Cannae tested at) (*)
H2 = 13.8 K
Ne = 24.6 K (This is what Cannae shows in the above drawings)
N2 = 63.1 K (Cannae discusses 75 K in their write-up)
On most spacecraft, one would use helium as a liquid cryogen of choice (regardless of the device
operating temperature) because the total enthalpy per unit cryogen mass available from the boiling
temperature to 300 K is highest for any fluid (except for hydrogen). Hydrogen is a special case. It has
good heat transfer properties and the largest total enthalpy of any fluid. The problem is its flammability.
Solid hydrogen can be used for space cryogenic cooling of devices (above 13 K) on satellites launched
using non-manned expendable rockets.
B) Active technology: the complexity involved with cryogenic fridge technology
So given the problem with 3% a month loss of cryogenics using passive technology, let's discuss the use of a fridge, to eliminate the losses of cryo-coolant:
* NASA has never deployed a liquid helium fridge in space. All missions (that need it), to our knowledge, have been Dewars + solid Hydrogen or liquid Helium reservoir. And good luck buying a space-qualified liquid Helium refrigerator (that's what they tested at) to fit in a 6 U CubeSat :)
*as an aside, cryo-compressed storage of hydrogen is the only technology that meets 2015 DOE targets for ground vehicle volumetric and gravimetric efficiency
----------------------------------------
(*) to be scientifically rigorous, helium converts into a Superfluid, and has two different fluid phases. This point is called the Lambda point . It never becomes a solid no matter how close we go to absolute zero. However in the literature (e.g. above report from Lawrence Livermore Lab) this is shown in charts as a triple point in comparison with the other cryogenics (thanks to Zen-In for emphasizing this, as it should have been noted)
-
Cryogenic Engineering 100...
All very interesting. But at that point it's just a complex engineering problem, no? If the concept itself is actually valid, the rest is just many hours of work and creative solutions. That's a huge leap forward considering the entire idea has largely been characterized as a little-understood long-shot that is probably experimental error at best, and fraudulent quackery at worst.
-
Cryogenic Engineering 100...
All very interesting. But at that point it's just a complex engineering problem, no? If the concept itself is actually valid, the rest is just many hours of work and creative solutions. That's a huge leap forward considering the entire idea has largely been characterized as a little-understood long-shot that is probably experimental error at best, and fraudulent quackery at worst.
This maybe the case for space if you're willing to resolve all the issues outlined, but such cryogenic engineering is hardly practical if you wanted to apply this to more terrestrial applications such as your flying car.
-
Understood, but if the concept is proven, the resources brought to bear on that engineering problem from private industry would be nothing short of massive. Getting ahead of ourselves a bit, but certainly looking forward to the peer-reviewed article and the Cannae test flight. TBH, never thought we'd see it get this far.
-
Re: Liquid Helium fridges.
I am familiar with the cryo work done at NASA Ames because I worked in that group for 5 years and contributed to the tests of the Spitzer IRAC focal plane image sensor. There has been a long program of research in stirling cryocoolers there. However I am not aware of any liquid Helium fridge development being done. Among the problems one would have with trying to contain the cryogens are maintaining a sufficiently low pressure in the closed system. Helium dewars require an insulating layer that shields the Helium from external IR radiation and that contains a high vacuum. Surrounding that is a liquid Nitrogen dewar. You cannot have a Helium dewar with any useful amount of hold time without a well designed IR radiation barrier and the surrounding liquid Nitrogen barrier. Achieving a long cryogen hold time is a black art that few are practiced in. So, from a practical point of view one would have 2 cryo systems to maintain closed loop. The cryocoolers would have to keep up with the heat leakage as well as any heat load from the experiment. If it couldn't do that there would be an explosion. On the plus side a closed loop cryo system does not have the problem of thrust generation from escaping cryogens. At least not until it explodes.
Heat dumping to space:
Even though outer space is widely considered a very cold place it is not easy to dump excess heat there because it is a high vacuum. Heat can only be lost by radiative cooling. If your cooling radiator or blackbody is illuminated by the Sun or Earth instead of exhausting heat it will gain heat.
-
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.
The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?
Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.
But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.
I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....
-
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.
The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?
Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.
But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.
I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....
I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.
-
In theory, would a pulse radar magnetron at 15Ghz, 200 kW, 0.2 us pulse produce a measurable force at first pulse with 4cm diameter frestrum out of stacked superconductors? Also, do you really need the shape to be round? Round shapes are kinda more expensive in this case
-
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.
The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?
Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.
But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.
I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....
I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.
One can guess they might look more like Shuttlecraft. They would gently lift up with no need of runways or airports, climb to where the atmosphere is thin or basically none, no need to go more than a few Mach since no point on Earth is more than 12,000 miles away, then slow and gently land. I limit the speed so a failure of the lift engines would not force anything like a full orbital re-entry with all that heat. I would also add backup parachutes in my design so it could float back if necessary.
-
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.
The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?
Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.
But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.
I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....
I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.
One can guess they might look more like Shuttlecraft. They would gently lift up with no need of runways or airports, climb to where the atmosphere is thin or basically none, no need to go more than a few Mach since no point on Earth is more than 12,000 miles away, then slow and gently land. I limit the speed so a failure of the lift engines would not force anything like a full orbital re-entry with all that heat. I would also add backup parachutes in my design so it could float back if necessary.
One thing that some people online need to grasp is even if it works. Will it scale, what other technology do we need such as super conductivity & it's all gone to take a very long time to go from lab bench to trips to Proxima B if ever.
Just to refer back to the OP in this thread with the renewed interest in this topic individuals are quoting stuff out of this thread, it has been noted on a certain other place which follows this topic so please take care in posting.
-
Technology to get to Proxima B fast but in one piece? I'd guess - warping space in crossection of the ship so that to the external observer it would seem to be few millimeters in diameter. Not sure if I'm joking
-
Cannae states that they have a design max operating temperature of 45K. They want the ambient temperature within a closed loop system to not exceed 45K and they will undoubtedly shoot for an operating temperature of significantly less than that value.
Their claim is that the 90 square meters of heat sink, more than double the radiation they need to keep the system well under the 45K design.
Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.
If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice
-
Perfect TE013 in spherical end-plate geometry using novel "offset loop" antenna. Special thanks to Shell for the final clue that eliminated the hotspot from a standard loop antenna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRY6jwERQY
-
Cannae states that they have a design max operating temperature of 45K. They want the ambient temperature within a closed loop system to not exceed 45K and they will undoubtedly shoot for an operating temperature of significantly less than that value.
Their claim is that the 90 square meters of heat sink, more than double the radiation they need to keep the system well under the 45K design.
Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.
If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice
* need to address the economic benefit that trades off not exhausting propellant and instead has 3% losses of Ne a month
*where is the 40 m^2 coming from ?
The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters.
If one calculates this, one would need more than the entire surface they write is available (90 m^2) when taking into account that:
*Not only the radiators have to be kept away from the Sun, but don't forget that the Earth's heat flux can easily be > 50 W/m^2 in LEO. Maybe 100 W/m^2 ? (*)
* unless Cannae is planning to put in a shield between the drive and the Earth and the drive and its radiators, or do both?
* if so, where is the design for that shield ?
(http://jwst.nasa.gov/images2/sunshieldhotcold.jpg)
(http://jwst.nasa.gov/images2/sunshieldcrosssection.jpg)
* please show how all of this is feasible to do in a 6 U (10 x 20 x 30 cm).
-----------------
-------------------------
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
-
There was a clear statement in an earlier post here that the Cannae 6U cubesat thruster was not superconducting. So the question of how to fit cooling in 6U does not arise.
-
There was a clear statement in an earlier post here that the Cannae 6U cubesat thruster was not superconducting. So the question of how to fit cooling in 6U does not arise.
Where are the calculations that show that a 6U Cannae cubesat in LEO 150 km does not need to be superconducting to successfully accomplish that goal ?
Let's go over this:
Theseus is going to be launching a demo cubesat which will use Cannae thruster technology to maintain an orbit below a 150 mile altitude. This cubesat will maintain its extreme LEO altitude for a minimum duration of 6 months.
Run the numbers for LEO at 150 km
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063367900232
The satellite 1966-101G was launched on 2 November 1966 into an orbit with an initial perigee height of 140 km. A satellite with such a low perigee usually decays within a few days, but 1966-101G was exceptionally dense and remained in orbit until 6 May 1967. Analysis of the changes in its orbital period provides an unique opportunity for studying continuously for six months the variations in air density at a height near 150 km.
This paper records the results of such an analysis, applicable for the (medium) level of solar activity prevailing early in 1967. It is shown that at a height of 155 km the air density is greater by day than by night, with the maximum daytime density exceeding the minimum night-time density by a factor of 1.7: in contrast the COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere 1965 predicts that the density should be slightly greater by night than by day. It is also found that the night-time density increases as solar activity increases, and that the density scale height given by CIRA 1965 at heights near 150 km is too low, perhaps by about 20%.
orbital data from a cubesat http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5792/minimum-orbit-altitude
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/f10FK.png)
They want 6 months on orbit at 150 km.
Assume that they present a surface of only 0.03 m^2.
A drag coefficient, CD= 2 (*)
Orbital velocity, v ~ 7835 m/sec (*)
Assume a margin of 2.5 (*) to make sure you would not deorbit if some event raised the density at high altitude.
For a 6 month mission, 150 km LEO, you will be in eclipse ~ 50% of the time (i.e., another factor of 2). (*)
Then the calculation is that one needs a thrust/power of at least 1 milli Newton / Watt.
To my knowledge, only the Cannae superconducting claims to provide 1 milliNewton/Watt. If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???
See:
details of the Cannae superconducting design and experiments, in this US Patent Application
https://www.google.com/patents/US20140013724
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
mN/kW
Cannae LLC, Superconducting 761.9 - 952.4
-------------------------
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
-
Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.
If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice
* you have not addressed the economic benefit that trades off not exhausting propellant and instead has 3% losses of Ne a month
*where does Cannae get 40 m^2 from ?
The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters.
Have you checked those calculations?
One would need substantially more than what they say is available (90 m^2) for that
*Not only the radiators have to be kept away from the Sun, but don't forget that the Earth's heat flux can easily be > 50 W/m^2 in LEO. Maybe 100 W/m^2 ?
* is Cannae planning to put in a shield between the drive and the Earth and the drive and its radiators, or do both?
* if so, where is the design for that shield ?
* please show how all of this is feasible to do in a 6 U (10 x 20 x 30 cm).
Calculations and feasibility is Cannae's job as it's their baby. I'm not qualified to do that level of work.
I'd like to point out that the Cannae picture you posted is their futuristic Space Freighter for deep space work, NOT the cubesat they are sending up. In fact Cannae speciffically states on their website: "Cannae is also commercializing a thruster that does not require superconducting operation in order to generate thrust" . [/font][/size][size=78%]http://http://cannae.com/the-technology/ (http://http://cannae.com/the-technology/)[/size]
I guess you assumed they were doing the Freighter in their cubesat. I assumed they are not.
Doc I do not have experience in cryogenic cooling systems. So I don't know what the 3% loss is based on. Is there a difference in efficiency in those systems if you start with and store your material as a solid instead of a liquid or gas? I would guess it might be more efficient but that's only a guess.
What I do see is that Neon can be a solid, liquid and gas within a narrow temperature range of +/- 3.5 K at a temperature that seems to be within the range that Cannae is shooting for.
Basic chemistry shows energy absorbed in the change from solid to liquid, and again from liquid to gas. For neon in the operating parameters that Cannae indicates, you could have potentially 2 phase changes. Neon also has a much higher density and thermal conductivity than helium at their respective boiling points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_(data_page) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_(data_page))
If Cannae can prove THEIR (not mine) statements that they can radiate off the heat they will generate, then they seem to have the potential to store their coolant as a solid and benefit from two potentially manageable phase changes.
PS: Fetta apparently has a degree in Chemical Engineering FYI.
-
....
I guess you assumed they were doing the Freighter in their cubesat. I assumed they are not.
....
No, rather than assuming things, one has to start by figuring out what is the thrust/PowerInput that would be required for a 6 month 150 km LEO [a low perigee] mission. See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578840#msg1578840 The calculation is that you need a thrust of at least 1 milli Newton / Watt.
To my knowledge, only the Cannae superconducting version claims to provide the calculated requirement of 1 milliNewton/Watt.
So, it is not an assumption that a Freighter will be used, but instead it comes from a calculation of what is the thrust/InputPower required for a 6 month 150 km LEO mission, with a reasonable margin of safety, as discussed above.
If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???
???
Also, my superconducting discussion was in response to this post by somebody else (which you marked with a "like"): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578614#msg1578614 that discussed superconducting operation of said Cannae EM Drive.
-
If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???
Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.
The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?
-
...What I do see is that Neon can be a solid, liquid and gas within a narrow temperature range of +/- 3.5 K at a temperature that seems to be within the range that Cannae is shooting for. ...
One should not bunch together this huge temperature range (75 to 2 deg K)
He = 2.17 K (This is what Cannae tested at)
H2 = 13.8 K
Ne = 24.6 K (This is what Cannae shows in the above drawings)
N2 = 63.1 K (Cannae discusses 75 K in their write-up)
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which describes the rate of transfer of radiant energy, is as follows for an object in a vacuum
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce87648e253879bfb34b9dc84d29971ebae56c12)
The formula for radiation heat transfer depends on the 4th power of the Temperature !
Such a nonlinear dependence is very unforgiving as the temperature goes down to absolute zero.
Comparing the 75 K in the write up with the 24 K for Ne is a factor of almost 100 times the radiator surface area
(75/24)^4 = 95
Comparing the 75 K in the write up with the 2 K they tested their superconducting at, gives a ratio of almost one and a half million:
(75/2.17)^4 = 1.4*10^6
Just trying to make sense with numbers here...
-
If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???
Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.
The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?
I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
2)The LEO tug as seen in the pic (previous page(s)) is enclosed and I am not sure how the Neon is to be used to aid in cooling---the tug is reported to be able to work for many years without servicing...I think this would indicate a closed atmosphere around the cavities where the gas is circulated in and out via pump.(gets cold when released and hot when compressed: basic air conditioning) A radiator of X size would probably be required on the shadow side of the tug outside of the enclosure.
3) the "deep space" probe is passively cooled with a special coating on the cavities which is reported to aid in the radiation of heat. These cavities would also remain in shadow except for periodic trajectory change or communication. Based on Cannae's claims pertaining to thrust/watt I was underwhelmed at the probes speed performance, but am left to recon that if more power were injected into the cavities they would exceed their 45 degrees K "rating" and become less efficient.
Once again Cannae doesn't say much, so we're left with logical speculation (Mr. Spock would not like this)!
-
Problem I have with all this is talk is cheap especially in the grey area of this technology. Verifiable actions are a whole other matter. Some of this talk has been going on for years so where is the practical nuts & bolts results?
-
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
...
So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-oqg9Zm5VA/VWj7lqFeUJI/AAAAAAAAGtM/8qbeCmGPNz8/s400/goodgrief.gif)
150*1.60934=241
So their orbit is really 241 km ?
That makes a difference ! Thanks
I calculated with 150 km. (I recall pointing this out weeks ago, when they first announced, that instead of using customary SI units, Cannae is using Miles, oh well ;) )
Just like the probe that crashed on Mars years ago (different units !)
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )
US Survey mile = International mile =1.60934 km
Nautical mile = 1.852 km
Roman mile = 1.481 km
Chinese mile = 0.5 km
-
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )
I reckon it's either that or nautical miles ;)
-
Star One, in reality the only data we have pertaining to Cannae is what we got from NASA. The rest is indeed marketing from/by Cannae...not to long ago I said they were a little to slick for me, and was criticized even for that comment. Unfortunately Monomorphic has been too busy to perform sims on several of Cannae's designs that I've dug up as part of my study.
I'm hoping for excellent results in his test campaign and look forward to digging into what IS out there about Cannae. I'm sorry if I disturbed you with the above mentioned...Cannae ticks me off (politely put) FL
-
Perfect TE013 in spherical end-plate geometry using novel "offset loop" antenna. Special thanks to Shell for the final clue that eliminated the hotspot from a standard loop antenna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRY6jwERQY
I am just curious what this "offset loop" antenna is supposed to look like. I would assume a loop symmetric with the axis of the cavity but in what way is it offset? Position maybe? Tried looking up images but didn't get anything definitive. Maybe I flunked my search. I remember Shell mentioning having one flat and one curved end plate. I am assuming this arrangement of plates helped with the placement of the antenna to maximize the interaction of the antenna with the radiation in the cavity. Possibly maximizing the electric field in its vicinity.
-
dustinthewind, probably like this antenna , but in a frustum instead of a Cannae RC.....by "offset" maybe he means suspended away from the wall, top or bottom plate, and not located on it.?
+ note it's a hoop (round) and not a loop...I wonder if that's a distinction without a difference : )
-
Any wiser heads than mine want to comment on the criticism of the experiments contained in the OP here.
https://m.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/51b1r8/nasas_eagleworks_em_drive_testing_searching_for/
-
Any wiser heads than mine want to comment on the criticism of the experiments contained in the OP here.
https://m.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/51b1r8/nasas_eagleworks_em_drive_testing_searching_for/
The only thing I've gleaned thus far is that my reading comprehension sucks at 1 AM. :-[
-
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.
If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.
The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.
The new version of the paper appeared today on arxiv at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
Here I get a general equation for the gravitational constant in the Brans-Dicke model determined by the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside the cavity. As already said, the gravitational constant, in this case, is modified just inside the volume of the cavity making the effect markedly larger than expected from Einstein gravity. In such conditions, the device does not appear reactionless, as claimed by somebody, but just use gravity.
Brans-Dicke model is a serious contender to Einstein's general relativity since '60 when was formulated. Presently, cosmological tests constrain it but does not rule it out at all.
-
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.
If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.
The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.
The new version of the paper appeared today on arxiv at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
Here I get a general equation for the gravitational constant in the Brans-Dicke model determined by the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside the cavity. As already said, the gravitational constant, in this case, is modified just inside the volume of the cavity making the effect markedly larger than expected from Einstein gravity. In such conditions, the device does not appear reactionless, as claimed by somebody, but just use gravity.
Brans-Dicke model is a serious contender to Einstein's general relativity since '60 when was formulated. Presently, cosmological tests constrain it but does not rule it out at all.
I looked this theory up on Wikipedia and it was quite hard to follow for a layperson such as myself how it differs from Einstein's theory and why it isn't regarded as applicable to reality?
-
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get me far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.
I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?
It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.
I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..
-
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get you far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.
I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?
It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.
I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..
Is this theory related to the idea that Gravity is different at the local scale in the universe than to the far scale, which is an alternative to Dark Matter theory?
-
No, I dont think it was dark matter related. I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)
added:
I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
from his post (colored for emphasis):
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.
If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.
-
In that case if you attached a number of increasingly large EM drives to a test rig wouldn't that make things a whole lot easier to detect and measure?
Is it financial limitations that EW are using such a small device?
-
No, I dont think it was dark matter related. I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)
added:
I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
from his post (colored for emphasis):
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.
If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.
Seems Cannae are following that approach in their Space Tug, that is to achieve greater area, Q and thrust to design in lower freq. Where lower thrust is OK, then to use higher freq, which results in smaller cavities, which use less volume.
-
In that case if you attached a number of increasingly large EM drives to a test rig wouldn't that make things a whole lot easier to detect and measure?
Is it financial limitations that EW are using such a small device?
I suppose the main problem is to find the right generator, so that physical dimensions match with the frequency, in order to obtain the required resonance mode.
The reason to why most DIY frustums are around 20-25cm long, is due to the easy availability of commercial magnetrons that have that ±2.4ghz range.
I have no idea if any cheap Rf generators are available in, fe, the sub 1ghz range?
Construction of a larger frustum maybe be a bit more tedious, but not really problematic, from a technical point of view.
For the moment, it is still a pure intellectual challenge so see if all these theories end up with the same conclusion, that bigger is better...
But if the EMdrive effect is indeed confirmed by the Eagleworks papers, better more conclusive evidence and experiment repeatability will be required.
Larger sized frustum operating with lower frequency might then be a better path to proceed, no?
-
I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)
added:
I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
from his post (colored for emphasis):
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.
If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.
Not only the Q and the generated force should increase, but bigger frustums would also allow an easier control over tuning the distance between end plates, controlling their deformation, as well as better radiative cooling.
Financial requirements appart, only from a state-of-the-art (not DIY) engineering point of view, do you guys know how much large could a frustum be built? The size of a fridge? A church bell? A room? Even bigger?
What about the availability of the required RF generators and the associated frequencies? Are RF wavelengths way outside of the domain of microwaves allowed for a big RF cavity? (in a nutshell: f < 1 GHz and λ > 30cm)
EDIT: basically I have the same concern as Star One and Flyby in their post before mine.
-
Also if you scale up the drive if there is evidence of other effects such as gravitational couldn't this be raised to a dangerous level? I mean can we even theorise the effects of large EM drives?
-
...
I looked this theory up on Wikipedia and it was quite hard to follow for a layperson such as myself how it differs from Einstein's theory and why it isn't regarded as applicable to reality?
The idea in Brans-Dicke theory is to add a scalar field (something that has as a value just numbers over all space and time) to standard general relativity. To do that, one assumes that the Newton constant is not really a constant but exactly that scalar field. Anything that has energy couples to gravity, so such a scalar field has an effect back on gravity and vice versa.
This theory is considered a contender to Einstein's theory as it recovers all the tests the general relativity and it could be used to see how far is our universe from Einstein's theory by giving a measurement of the parameters that make the difference between these two theories.
So, on cosmological and planetary scales, one gets that these theories are identical for all practical purposes provided a parameter (omega) is taken large enough.
What makes the difference for a resonant cavity is that you get a significant amount of energy well localized and tests of the two theories in this case are not known. It could be that Brans-Dicke theory performs better in this case supporting the conclusions by NASA on their measurements (remember that we have to see their paper yet).
I hope this help. I can expand if you need it.
-
I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)
added:
I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
from his post (colored for emphasis):
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.
If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.
Not only the Q and the generated force should increase, but bigger frustums would also allow an easier control over tuning the distance between end plates, controlling their deformation, as well as better radiative cooling.
Financial requirements appart, only from a technical point of view, do you guys know how much large could a frustum be built? The size of a fridge? A church bell? A room? Even bigger?
What about the availability of the required RF generators and the associated frequencies? Are RF wavelength way outside of the domain of microwaves allowed for a big RF cavity? (in a nutshell: f < 1 GHz and λ > 30cm)
The problem is also in power output for available RF generators at different frequencies and price of superconductors if you are going to go gen2 at some point. I think there's a confusion in objectives here. Scalability is a long-term engineering task which will be solved one way or another, what is more crucial right now IMHO is to prove that it can produce significant forces and do it as cheaply as possible for others to easily reproduce, write peer reviewed papers about and post youtube videos. That's why I'm asking questions about pulse magnetrons that are used in radars. Those go from $1000 to around $5000 apiece if sourced from the right places.
See here for a general idea:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Radar%20Transmitter.en.html (http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Radar%20Transmitter.en.html)
-
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get me far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.
I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?
It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.
I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..
With the first version of the paper, I made a Maple worksheet available with the computations. It evaluated the frequency of the mode and from it it yielded a value of the expected thrust. We agreed with Dr. Rodal that the numbers were way too small with respect to the measured ones (if ever confirmed). This made the paper interesting but not directly applicable to the case. If you like, I can provide the Maple worksheet for you to play with.
This new version fits the bill and should yield values of the thrust in agreement with those NASA has found. For the new version, I have not yet done numerical work. This is somewhat more complex as I have to solve numerically an integral equation. Work for the near future.
-
...
Is this theory related to the idea that Gravity is different at the local scale in the universe than to the far scale, which is an alternative to Dark Matter theory?
Not exactly so. You should imagine a theory where the Newton constant G, the one entering into the well-known equation -Gm1m2/r2, varying from point to point. It was invented before any idea of dark matter and so, was not aimed for it.
-
Marco
As the cavity fills up with photons - what happens to the relative permittivity and permeability in the cavity?
-
Marco
As the cavity fills up with photons - what happens to the relative permittivity and permeability in the cavity?
As far as I can tell, these are constants depending on the material put inside the cavity.
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?
No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.
Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?
No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.
Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.
Thank you. It's a shame the two things have been decoupled.
-
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
...
So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-oqg9Zm5VA/VWj7lqFeUJI/AAAAAAAAGtM/8qbeCmGPNz8/s400/goodgrief.gif)
150*1.60934=241
So their orbit is really 241 km ?
That makes a difference ! Thanks
I calculated with 150 km. (I recall pointing this out weeks ago, when they first announced, that instead of using customary SI units, Cannae is using Miles, oh well ;) )
Just like the probe that crashed on Mars years ago (different units !)
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )
US Survey mile = International mile =1.60934 km
Nautical mile = 1.852 km
Roman mile = 1.481 km
Chinese mile = 0.5 km
Let's work through the numbers for Cannae's proposed Cubesat mission, using 240 km instead of 150 km:
http://cannae.com/cubesat/
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/
The publicity picture appears to show a larger than 1x3U Cubesat, the second link talks about a 6U Cubesat
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/35/980x490/landscape-1472765657-cannae-12.png)
Orbit (assume circular orbit at published distance, interpreted as US Miles)
ro=150 USmile *1.60934 km/USmile ~ 240 km
Orbital velocity (Assuming circular orbit at 240 km)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ff5595cb6d81d417863e0f83dfa78c4e7dc0479d)
G=6.67408 * 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
M=5.972 * 10^24 kg (mass of the Earth)
R=6.371*10^6 m (mean radius of the Earth)
r = R + ro
= 6.371*10^6 m+ 240*10^3 m
v=7765 m/sec
Drag Surface area: assume a minimum cross-sectional area, for a 1x3U Cubesat with cross-sectional drag surface of 0.10m x 0.30 m, perpendicular to the orbital plane(this assumes that the solar panels are always parallel to the orbital velocity vector)
Assume minimum configuration:
1x3U Cubesat (Notice that picture shows a larger Cubesat and link discusses a 6U Cubesat. The thrust necessary for larger Cubesats can be obtained by simple scaling of the appropriate cross-sectional area. For example, a 2x3U Cubesat will have twice the minimum cross-sectional area of a 1x3U Cubesat)
A=0.10m *0.30m
= 0.03 m^2
Drag coefficient
CD=2 (*)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Reynerson/publication/221910818/figure/fig16/AS:328433923051529@1455316157485/Fig-33-Drag-Profile-For-Cubesat-Using-ESM-Plate-Model.png)
Reynerson, "Aerodynamic Disturbance Force and Torque Estimation for Spacecraft and Simple Shapes Using Finite Plate Elements Part I: Drag Coefficient"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221910818_Aerodynamic_Disturbance_Force_
and_Torque_Estimation_for_Spacecraft_and_Simple_Shapes_Using_Finite_Plate_Elements_
Part_I_Drag_Coefficient/figures?lo=1
de Vries, "Cubesat Drag Calculations "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/433600.pdf
Olttroge et.al.,"An evaluation of Cubesat Orbital Decay",
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=smallsat
Atmospheric Density
MSISE90 std atmosphere (for 240 km)
(References:
This link enables the computation and plotting of any subset of MSIS parameters:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/msis_vitmo.html
http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/modelinfo.php?model=MSISE ) (*)
@Mean solar activity rhoMean= 9.91 x 10^-11 kg m^-3
@Maximum solar activity rhoMax= = 4.08 x 10^-10 kg m^-3
rhoMax/rhoMean=4.117
The solar cycle is very important,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Skylab_Solar_flare.jpg/300px-Skylab_Solar_flare.jpg)
since air density, and hence drag, is very much dependent on solar activity. It is what brought Skylab down ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Solar_activity ):
British mathematician Desmond King-Hele of the Royal Aircraft Establishment predicted in 1973 that Skylab would de-orbit and crash to earth in 1979, sooner than NASA's forecast, because of increased solar activity. Greater-than-expected solar activity heated the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere and increased drag on Skylab.
Observe the chart below for where we are now, and the predicted activity in the future:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_progression_and_prediction.gif)
Drag Force
DMax =(1/2) CD rhoMax A v^2
=(1/2) 2 (4.08 x 10^-10 kg m^-3) (0.03 m^2) (7765)^2
=7.38*10^(-4) N
DMean = DMax/4.117
=1.79*10^(-4) N
Solar radiation pressure is negligible: 4.5 (absorption) to 9 (reflection) μN /m2, so radiation force will be less than 0.27 μN. (For LEO, the radiation pressure from the Earth is hard to model as it depends on cloud albedo, but it is smaller than solar and thus also negligible).
Mass = 1.33 kg/U
3U =4 kg
6U =8 kg
Acceleration due to Atmospheric Drag
For 3U, mass=4 kg
aMax= DMax/Mass
=7.38*10^(-4) N/4 kg
=1.85*10^(-4) m/s^2
aMean=DMean/Mass
=1.79*10^(-4) N /4 kg
=4.40*10^(-5) m/s^2
Maximum Power available from sunlight = 10 watts
From Cannae's announcement: http://cannae.com/cubesat/
Our thruster configuration for the cubesat mission with Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power to perform station keeping thrusting.
Effective power available , assuming a common-low-to-moderate-inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude, as shown in this picture by Cannae:
(http://cannae.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Snapshot11.bmp)
and hence taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time, and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*)
=5 watts
Assume no safety margin: SafetyMargin=1
Necessary thrust
TMax= SafetyMargin* DMax
= 7.38*10^(-4) N
TMean= TMax /(rhoMax/rhoMean)
= 1.79*10^(-4) N
Necessary Thrust/PowerInput
TMax /PowerInput= 7.38*10^(-4) /5 W
= 148 μN/W
TMean /PowerInput= 1.79*10^(-4) N /5 W
= 36 μN/W
Conclusion:
The orbit makes a big difference, concerning the requirements for such a mission. While a 150 km would require ~1 milliNewton/Watt to ensure no deorbiting, an orbit of 240 km requires substantially less thrust/PowerInput. Note that most Cubesat launches are at 300 - 400 km - The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda module or visiting spacecraft.
Cannae's mission for keeping in orbit for 6 months a Cubesat, assuming:
* minimum configuration 1x3U Cubesat, with cross sectional area of only 0.03 m2
* no safety margin
* mean Solar activity
* that the solar panels are kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector (otherwise drag will be much greater)
requires a Thrust/PowerInput= 36 microNewton/Watt which is consistent with NASA's previously reported results for copper resonant cavities excited at ~2 GHz :
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
However, maximum Solar activity would require about 150 microNewton/watt.
If the solar panels are not kept parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, drag will be much greater, and hence much greater thrust would be required.
Furthermore, this assumes no safety margin.
Also this is based on a minimum configuration 1x3U Cubesat, with minimum cross sectional area of only 0.03 m2
The Cannae publicity picture appears to show a larger than 1x3U Cubesat configuration instead, and if so, a larger cross-sectional area which would require a proportionally larger thrust force to overcome atmospheric drag.
The link http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/ describes a 6U Cubesat. If it is a 2x3U Cubesat, then the minimum cross-sectional area is twice what is calculated above and therefore the atmospheric drag will require twice the thrust calculated above for a 1x3U Cubesat.
Also, worthy of note when planning a 6 month mission in Low Earth Orbit:
I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.
_________________________________________
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
-
Plan does not match aspiration then in your opinion?
-
Plan does not match aspiration then in your opinion?
This was just a numerical analysis on available information for their planned mission. The assumptions in the analysis were clearly stated.
Cannot provide further objective comments until there is more information, and hence clarity on exactly what is planned. To engage in further comments, need further engineering information on the planned mission.
As you see from the analysis, it makes a big difference whether the planned orbit is 150 km or 240 km.
Solar activity is crucial: it is what brought down Skylab ahead of NASA's early predictions.
If anybody knows of any public information that has not been taken into account in the above analysis let us know, and then we can elaborate further ;)
-
...
Cannae's mission for keeping in orbit for 6 months a 6U Cubesat, assuming:
* no safety margin
* mean Solar activity
* that the solar panels are kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector (otherwise drag will be much greater)
requires a Thrust/PowerInput= 36 microNewton/Watt which is consistent with NASA's reported results for copper resonant cavities excited at ~2 GHz .
However, maximum Solar activity would require about 150 microNewton/watt.
If the solar panels are not kept parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, drag will be much greater, and hence much greater thrust would be required.
Furthermore, this assumes no safety margin.[/b]
Also, worthy of note when planning a 6 month mission in Low Earth Orbit:
I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.
_________________________________________
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
Thanks Dr. Rodal. I just ran my atmosphere models and got slightly different absolute numbers, but similar variance. My point is always - why in the world would you try to demonstrate performance in an environment where external forces can vary (undetectably) by a factor of 4?
Best case, if you can show that thrust is exceeding drag, you still cannot accurately estimate the magnitude of that thrust unless it far exceeds the highest likely drag value. And any conclusion such as "well, the orbit is decaying more slowly that you would expect" would depend on assumption of actual atmospheric density in the exosphere (not to mention spacecraft attitude excursions which change Cd), both of which would be highly speculative.
Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.
-
A question I would like some thought to. Please don't get mad if this seems stupid.
These devices seem critically dependent on high Q to enhance and multiply the force differential which is extremely difficult to achieve since destructive interference has infinite possibilities to happen. I wonder if there is fundamentally a different way to get to the same end yet without needing to sustain resonance. What I'm thinking of is an asymmetrically designed device that acts more as a waveguide to recirculate the radiation as opposed to bounce it back and forth interacting with the ends. This mode of operation would be similar to photon recycling schemes recently validated by experiment.
BTW, concerning resonance, in recent photon recycling experiments by Y. Bae, an effective resonance was set up between mirrors so stable, the author could move the mirror around with his hand and maintain the resonance. He used a so-called gain medium in the loop. Do you builders have an analogy with microwaves? Thanks.
-
Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.
If they're pushing a millinewton per watt (baseless conjecture), they'd probably feel confident about their demonstration satellite.
-
Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.
If you're a commercial space venture and you need access to capital, a space demonstration is a lot sexier than more lab work.
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
-
If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???
Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.
The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?
I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By turning it off and on again?
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/chamberlin/stkview.bmp)
Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.
Best to all,
Shell
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
Best to all,
Shell
I recommended a sun-synchronous orbit but then deleted the comment because Cannae's image of their orbit doesn't look sun-synchronous.
-
Pardon me if this has been mentioned and shot down before, but what about a "control" satellite, in the same orbit? A duplicate of the experiment satellite in every way, except the EM drive isn't turned on.
I'm guessing collision issues and cost are the main arguments against, and perhaps drag models are so good it isn't needed. But it would make a statement that's dramatic and difficult to explain away (which is what I'm worried about with a single satellite, considering the small forces involved).
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.
Best to all,
Shell
Thanks for the rocking ;)
To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.
Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.
These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit. Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.
The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.
(*) Compared to the advantage of launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ).
-
Pardon me if this has been mentioned and shot down before, but what about a "control" satellite, in the same orbit? A duplicate of the experiment satellite in every way, except the EM drive isn't turned on.
I'm guessing collision issues and cost are the main arguments against, and perhaps drag models are so good it isn't needed. But it would make a statement that's dramatic and difficult to explain away (which is what I'm worried about with a single satellite, considering the small forces involved).
I'd imagine that depends on your budget strategy ;)
-
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?
No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.
Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.
It has intrigued me as well the first time I ran across the laser interferometer testing. They used a circular resonator for the testing and I had to ask how I could in some future testing do it on a Frustum. It was staring right at me in the quartz rod I have through the center of the frustum. Thinking you could use two equal lengths of fiber optics or even the quartz rod, one through the cavity and one on the outside to measure time differentials in beam travel.
Also if your using a TE012 or better yet a TE013 mode there is a center line through the frustum virtually free of fields, magnetic and electrical.
https://youtu.be/wBRY6jwERQY
I'm not there yet although it is on the bucket list.
Back to testing.
My Best to all,
Shell
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/chamberlin/stkview.bmp)
Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.
Best to all,
Shell
Thanks for the rocking ;)
To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.
Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.
The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric circular orbit at 240 km
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.
(*) Compared to the advantage of launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation
Thanks, that clears it up perfectly. I did ask.
Shell
-
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, the drag force is going to increase dramatically, and hence the needed thrust is going to increase concomitantly, particularly if you have the solar panels perpendicular to the orbital local plane, as the surface area of the solar panels is much greater than the considered minimum cross-sectional area.
To minimize drag forces one wants to present the smallest cross-sectional area to the flow, instead of presenting the largest cross-sectional area.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)
-
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
We'll see if it works and let you know.
Shell
-
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
=5 watts...
Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly?
I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector. For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, the drag force is going to increase dramatically, and hence the needed thrust is going to increase concomitantly, particularly if you have the solar panels perpendicular to the orbital local plane, as the surface area of the solar panels is much greater than the considered minimum cross-sectional area.
To minimize drag forces one wants to present the smallest cross-sectional area to the flow, instead of presenting the largest cross-sectional area.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)
Well, that's a great point. One could:
1) maintain a sun-pointing attitude where you would get constant power (for half the orbit anyway) but have a varying drag coefficient (because your orientation with respect to the velocity vector is changing), or
2) maintain a constant attitude with respect to the velocity vector giving you a constant drag coefficient, but varying power input.
(Come to think of it, 1) won't work because the thruster orientation would be changing also)
One would have to assume there are enough batteries on board to maintain constant power to the thruster even during occultation and non-optimal array pointing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
Best to all,
Shell
I recommended a sun-synchronous orbit but then deleted the comment because Cannae's image of their orbit doesn't look sun-synchronous.
Generally, CubeSats don't get to choose their orbits. They hitchhike to wherever the main payload is going (or get ejected into the Space Station orbit).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.
Best to all,
Shell
Thanks for the rocking ;)
To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.
Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.
These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit. Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.
The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.
(*) Compared to the advantage of launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ).
Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/
Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
-
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
Well what you drew FL looks a lot like what I drew before. I think it is supposed to be about 1/4 wavelength from the wall where the electric field is maximum. I believe the perimeter of the loop, where the wires separate and form the circle, should be 1/2 wavelength long, but that depends on how long the wavelength is in the wire. I was just curious if it was the same concept as I had posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1536201#msg1536201 . Seems like it might be. Maybe if the perimeter is smaller there wouldn't be a problem but if larger there might.
-
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )
I reckon it's either that or nautical miles ;)
Fathoms
-
One would have to assume there are enough batteries on board to maintain constant power to the thruster even during occultation and non-optimal array pointing.
Unless they don't plan on constant power.
No orbit is perfectly round. Maybe they plan power as they approach perigee, then power off so the systems cool down.
-
...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.
Best to all,
Shell
Thanks for the rocking ;)
To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.
Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.
These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit. Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.
The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.
(*) Compared to the advantage of launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ).
Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/
Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
It's a good bet then it could be on this.
-
...
Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/
Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).
This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest
http://www.spacex.com/missions
Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits with a Falcon 9 before?
We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.
This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.
Also this most recent one is supersynchronous instead of sun sync:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/05/27/thaicom-8-mission-photos
This 2015 user's guide for SpaceX has them launching from Vanderbeg for sun synch orbits, using either a "Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy"
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf
The Falcon Heavy is not yet operational:
<<Following the Falcon 9 CRS-7 failure investigation in 2015, repeated rocket development delays, and given a very busy Falcon 9 launch manifest in 2016, the first Falcon Heavy launch is now expected in early 2017>>
-
...
Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/
Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).
This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest
http://www.spacex.com/missions
One has to wonder whether with such a launch they can get the necessary altitude for a sun sync orbit.
Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits before?
We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.
This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.
If the manifest for the launch was almost full as they seemed to indicate I wonder why it has disappeared.
-
...
Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.
http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/
Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).
This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest
http://www.spacex.com/missions
One has to wonder whether with such a launch vehicle (Falcon 9) they can get the necessary altitude for a real sun sync orbit.
Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits before?
We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.
This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.
Also this most recent one is supersynchronous instead of sun sync:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/05/27/thaicom-8-mission-photos
This 2015 user's guide for SpaceX has them launching from Vanderbeg for sun synch orbits, using either a "Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy"
If they really need a Falcon Heavy to execute a real sun-synch, such a launch vehicle (Falcon Heavy) is not yet operational:
<<Following the Falcon 9 CRS-7 failure investigation in 2015, repeated rocket development delays, and given a very busy Falcon 9 launch manifest in 2016, the first Falcon Heavy launch is now expected in early 2017>>
A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
-
...
A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHfIByopUpE
-
...
A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
Doesn't it also take extra power to rotate the orbit 90 degrees over 3 months so that the orbit stays sun synchronous?
Ok I am mistaken. quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit "Sun-synchronous orbits can happen around other oblate planets, such as Mars. A satellite around the almost spherical Venus, for example, will need an outside push to be in a sun-synchronous orbit."
So it appears it is the oblateness that allows them to do such an orbit with out the need for extra power. Never mind then.
-
...
A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
Don't know myself but it is no different that inserting into any other orbit, except for deltaV and launch azimuth constraints. It's really not an issue.
-
...
A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
Don't know myself but it is no different that inserting into any other orbit, except for deltaV and launch azimuth constraints. It's really not an issue.
OK but direct insertion launching into Sun-synchronous orbits (SSO) is different from other orbits, in that SSO require high injection accuracy. The launch window needs to occur at the time of day when the launch site location is aligned with the plane of the required orbit. To launch at another time would require an orbital plane change manoeuvre which would require a large amount of propellant.
There is also the issue of approval.Was this Sun Synch Express mission officially approved to launch? Did it ever appear in the SpaceX manifest?
The high inclination of SSO orbits causes satellites with similar semi-major axes but differing right ascension values to have intersecting orbit planes near both poles. Avoidance maneuvers are not uncommon among high value active SSO satellites to avoid other active satellites and orbital debris.
An older USAirForce satellite, DMSP-F13, blew up in February 2015 after a battery failed, creating tens of thousands of pieces of small debris and a potential problem for other satellites operating in sun-synchronous polar orbits. ( https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/13/dmsp-satellite-debris-expected-to-remain-in-orbit-for-decade/ )
One way to reduce the frequency of avoidance maneuvers and the risk of collision is to place active satellites in strategic orbits and restrict the amount of allowable drift from that original orbit.
_________________________
Several announcements about SpaceX going to launch a Sun Synch Orbit (SSO), but apparently (?) SpaceX has NOT launched a single SSO yet (?):
SSO missions still on SpaceX manifest:
Argentina's SAOCOM:
http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-signs-argentinas-space-agency-two-falcon-9-launches
<<Originally, the launch was announced for 2010 (1A) and 2011 (1B), but later due to delays in satellites development both launches were postponed for 2012 and 2013.Further delays pushed the launches date back tentatively towards 2014 and 2015. As of February 2016, SAOCOM 1A was later scheduled for launch in December 2016 and SAOCOM 1B in December 2017. As of April 2016 the scheduled launch dates for 1A and 1B are were further pushed back to October 2017 and October 2018. Falcon-9 rockets will be used for the launches>>
Taiwan NSPO satellite AKA Formosat-5
The news reports about it are from 2010 (And, yet, it is still on the SpaceX manifest.)
http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-and-national-space-organization-nspo-sign-contract-launch
<<Formosat-5 is slated to launch as early as December 2013 from SpaceX's launch site on Omelek Island at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii.>>
That's 3 years ago...
-
dustinthewind, yes to your question, and could the hoop not also be suspended from the bottom? And while we're at it what about the from the side?
-
SpaceX isn't launching anything until they can figure out why their second stages keep exploding.
-
SpaceX isn't launching anything until they can figure out why their second stages keep exploding.
That goes without saying I would have thought.
-
I'd like to point out that the Cannae picture [that was] posted is their futuristic Space Freighter for deep space work, NOT the cubesat they are sending up.
Thanks for that.
So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?
Hah! The early space standards were all American! Note that the various constants and what have you, are Mother Nature's and do not fit in with SAE or SI units. But still, it would be nice if the simplest of information could be shared by the Cannae people.
The key factor, besides altitude, in Jose's calcs, I think, is the efficiency of the solar panels, and this is dependent on the chosen orbit of the sat, as well as the sat's ability to optimize the panels to face the Sun. Keep in mind that there will also be stationkeeping requirements, which encourages one wonder how they plan on achieving all this.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
That is correct, but note that the term "parallel to the orbital velocity vector" has many answers, since "parallel" can rotate about its vertical axis and still be parallel. The illustration is incorrectly oriented for a helio-synch orbit, for the most part.
See the chart in the oracle for the direction of the velocity vector:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_state_vectors
One crucial peice of info not provided in the thread as of the moment, is whether or not the Cannae cubesat has been placed in a geosynch orbit, where I believe that it would have better than 50% solar cell efficiency.
Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude...
Which, solo dicendo, is much higher than the advertised orbit. And SpaceX hasn't yet launched such an orbit, according to, well, their manifest.
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...
Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs? How did you get the 50% efficiency factor?
Sounds like the future launch of this sat is speculative.
-
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...
Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs?
NO, not at all.
As it was clear clear to SeeShells and Monomorphic (who deserve the credit for suggesting a SSO orbit] I did not assume, in my calculations, anything even close to a Sun-Synchronous Orbit
How did you get the 50% efficiency factor?
I implicitly assumed (but let's make it explicit now) a low-to-moderate inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude:
Power available from sunlight (from news that Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power) = 10 watts
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
I'll edit my original post to make that low-to -moderate inclination orbit assumption explicit ;) to read:
mille grazie
Power available from sunlight (from news that Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power) = 10 watts
Effective power available , assuming a common low-to-moderate inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude, and hence taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time, and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*)
=5 watts
-
... if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...
Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs?
NO, not at all.
HAH! 'Cause I was assuming an SSO! I just couldn't see the sat stationkeeping in the shadow on battery power and only 50% efficiency for recharging and at that low-ish altitude.
Just for laffs, in an SSO, you can minimize drag by orienting the panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector, AND you can minimize solar efficiency by ensuring that the panels point away from the Sun!
On the serious side, the sat would be a success if it could keep itself in orbit, and be able to report data back to Earth.
It seems clear that the launch is speculative.
-
Heads up again about Cannae and their designs: re the previous picture posted, Cannae does not have a "deep space freighter"....they have a design for a LEO to higher earth orbit "tug", and a design for a deep space probe. What was posted earlier was the propulsion module for the tug (which is enclosed with an apparent active Ne cooling system). The deep space probe is fully exposed to space. Please see attached. tug is 1st, DS probe is 2nd
-
New article summing up the latest developments, even managed to get Cannae's proposed cubesat in there.
http://www.universetoday.com/130649/nasas-em-drive-passes-peer-review-dont-get-hopes/
-
from the article :
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....
euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?
-
from the article :
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....
euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?
Yes I did a double take at that as well.
-
dustinthewind, yes to your question, and could the hoop not also be suspended from the bottom? And while we're at it what about the from the side?
I was fairly sure that a while ago Dr Rodal suggested that for efficient energy transfer from the antenna it should be in the area of greatest electric field? Hopefully I didn't miss anything important in that. This is why I chose the top because that is where the electric field is the greatest. I also chose to drop the twisted wires through the center because the fields are weak there, but I think technically once the wires are twisted they could exit out the side or however you like. There would probably be some impact on interfering slightly with the fields to some small degree.
I know the part of the wire that induces the radiation in the cavity (the untwisted part) should match the shape of the electric field. This is because the time retarded acceleration of the electrons electric field is what induces the shape of the electric field and the counter currents in the cavity.
The half wavelength, perimeter of the circle is so all the electrons in the wire are moving in the same direction at some instant.
-
Not sure if it has been linked here before, but the Aachen guys also want to send a cubesat Emdrive into space in 2017:
https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
http://tinyurl.com/zurl9mc
Looks like more than one Emdrive is going to space.
-
from the article :
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....
euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?
I'd file that under interesting, but dubious; these guys are erroneously parroting the claim that Rodal deleted his post, which suggests that they're not doing much in the way of fact checking.
-
from the article :
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....
euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?
I'd file that under interesting, but dubious; these guys are erroneously parroting the claim that Rodal deleted his post, which suggests that they're not doing much in the way of fact checking.
That's been repeated not just by then about the deleting that is.
-
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon
P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2
Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)
So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.
(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
-
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon
P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2
Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)
So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.
(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
This is one of the oldest hypothesis to be put to the test, and Eagleworks' vacuum experiments have long since shown that the effect is not a thermal balloon.
-
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon
P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2
Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)
So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.
(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
This is one of the oldest hypothesis to be put to the test, and Eagleworks' vacuum experiments have long since shown that the effect is not a thermal balloon.
It's a bit depressing to see people keep trotting out this long debunked theory and a perfect example of the misreporting around the EM drive.
-
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon
P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2
Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)
So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.
(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
Very easy to test and factor thermal effects in drive orientation if thrust is a given direction.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
-
dustinthewind, also correct: I don't know where his post is, but Dr. Rodal did discuss the placement and size of the hoop antenna....if memory serves, I believe he indicated there was very little wiggle room re size and placement (my words). If he's on line perhaps he might confirm.
-
A question I would like some thought to. Please don't get mad if this seems stupid.
These devices seem critically dependent on high Q to enhance and multiply the force differential which is extremely difficult to achieve since destructive interference has infinite possibilities to happen. I wonder if there is fundamentally a different way to get to the same end yet without needing to sustain resonance. What I'm thinking of is an asymmetrically designed device that acts more as a waveguide to recirculate the radiation as opposed to bounce it back and forth interacting with the ends. This mode of operation would be similar to photon recycling schemes recently validated by experiment.
BTW, concerning resonance, in recent photon recycling experiments by Y. Bae, an effective resonance was set up between mirrors so stable, the author could move the mirror around with his hand and maintain the resonance. He used a so-called gain medium in the loop. Do you builders have an analogy with microwaves? Thanks.
Here is an experiment I was thinking of related to this. It is based on the high Q mirrors but there is a large voltage on the mirrors and the mirrors are not free to move with respect to each other.
The question is if the mass of the light will vary depending on which mirror it strikes (based on the charge density on the mirror). If so the mirror system may accelerate, similar to the Woodward effect but not by changing the mass of a capacitor, rather the light. It would possibly be related to the cavity because the difference in the photons impulse would be amplified by the Q of the cavity. The idea being the capacitor may some how polarize the vacuum modifying the mass of light. Some number figures would be needed for a prediction.
If DC voltage is too hard to ramp up it may be possible to use AC voltage (capacitance/inductance) to ramp up the voltage stored on the capacitors/mirrors and pulse the light such that when the light strikes the mirrors the system appears static in charge. I'm not sure if a dielectric may be required to pull such a stunt off or not to slow the light between the mirrors. Preferably not, because one would want the vacuum to be polarized more so than some dielectric, I think.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
There was also Dave's first frustum, which used copper mesh and did not appear to be capable of thermal ballooning. We've looked pretty hard at the thermal effects for more than a year now, and this forum likewise determined that thermal effects could produce the forces measured, but not all the frustums and experimental setups tested could produce those kinds of thermal effects.
-
dustinthewind, also correct: I don't know where his post is, but Dr. Rodal did discuss the placement and size of the hoop antenna....if memory serves, I believe he indicated there was very little wiggle room re size and placement (my words). If he's on line perhaps he might confirm.
I was speculating on the antenna experiencing propulsion inside the cavity but it turned out if the antenna experiences a force due to being in the magnetic field it develops an electric field in the magnetic field that is not in synch with the radiation in the cavity. I think the force on the antenna would be countered by the impulse from the light developed that then strikes the cavity itself.
This led me to a dead end for a form of propulsion by this method but I found it interesting that if you had a loose antenna in the cavity, I think it was that it should be pushed toward the region of high electric field. That region being where there isn't force on the antenna by F=q(v x B). If one measures the force on the antenna and you already had radiation in the cavity it should tell you exactly where to place the antenna in the cavity. It would probably be better to have a sensing antenna mounted separately for measuring radiation in the cavity. Preferably in a not so sensitive region.
The other option to using an antenna is what Shell and others were using, and is the wave guide method. I'm not sure how to determine exactly your mode using waveguides, but it probably has to do with current stimulation and shape on the surface of the waveguide at the mouth/throat.
-
Cooper mesh or not, it does not matter too much because the pressure of the hot air inside the balloon (cavity) and that of the cold air outside are identical, just their densities are different, so the hot and cold air will not mix so easily.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c)
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
No. NASA Eagle Works debunked this by running their tests in a vacuum chamber.
-
Cooper mesh or not, it does not matter too much because the pressure of the hot air inside the balloon (cavity) and that of the cold air outside are identical, just their densities are different, so the hot and cold air will not mix so easily.
Buoyancy only effects a drive in a direction parallel to the force of gravity. Most tests I have seen are perpendicular to the force of gravity. Even if the test was in the vertical direction you could just flip the drive over in the down direction and see if the force reverses. Correctly done, buoyancy is eliminated.
-
This is what an experimenter said after he had changed the orientation of the truncated cone:
"I flipped the cone and I had the thrust pointing in the opposite direction. Unfortunately this thrust is around 7 times smaller." (Source: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size)
The thrust should be the same.
-
The thrust should be the same.
This is only true if there are no thermal effects, which is obviously not the case.
-
This is what an experimenter said after he had changed the orientation of the truncated cone:
"I flipped the cone and I had the thrust pointing in the opposite direction. Unfortunately this thrust is around 7 times smaller." (Source: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size))
The thrust should be the same.
I suggest you go back to earlier threads and start reading and you will find vast amounts of discussion on this and other items. Around March 2015 would be a good start.
But there is no thermal lift in a vacuum.
-
Considering that the frustum is asymmetrical and that outer surface heating is not uniform, it's hard to estimate the net effect of heated air flowing around the device under test. But what if you eliminate it? Suppose you enclose the frustum in a symmetrical styrofoam jacket. Maybe that would eliminate any aerodynamic effects of heated air flowing around the frustum...
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
No, not worse. Air jet is a transient effect. There's only so much mass in the frustum to jet. Unless you have hooked up an air compressor to it.
Buoyancy force is parallel to gravity, and perpendicular to thrust from torsional pendulum experiments, which have the best thrust measurement capability.
-
Considering that the frustum is asymmetrical and that outer surface heating is not uniform, it's hard to estimate the net effect of heated air flowing around the device under test. But what if you eliminate it? Suppose you enclose the frustum in a symmetrical styrofoam jacket. Maybe that would eliminate any aerodynamic effects of heated air flowing around the frustum...
As the frustum is powered, it dumps resistive heat into the copper. Its temperature will rise much more with an insulating blanket - could cause a problem with material compatibility, and throw the unit even further out of tune unless using automatic retuning (mechanical or frequency-based).
Why not apply a blanket electrical heater on the inside of the frustum to characterize the natural convection force?
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
No, not worse. Air jet is a transient effect. There's only so much mass in the frustum to jet. Unless you have hooked up an air compressor to it.
Buoyancy force is perpendicular to gravity.
Most designs seal the inside pretty well, so the air jets should be small and possibly continuous for the entire time the power is on in many cases. At the force scale we are discussing these small jets could be quite significant.
Buoyancy is purely vertical as a force, but there are multiple ways depending on the experimental setup that it could be translated to a horizontal deflection, not to mention that some experiments have used vertical orientation.
Most emDrive experimental data I have looked at has had clear non-signal noise factors comparable to the "signal." Also I have noticed a trend that the more sensitive an experiment, and the lower the noise floor, the smaller the apparent signal. This is an indication to me that most experiments likely have multiple layers of error sources, and it is not clear any apparent signal is real.
-
The balloon effect could be mitigated entirely by filling (actually pumping out) the frustum via a Schrader valve to a pressure that is below ambient and is calculated not to exceed ambient when heated to maximum by the RF + I'd charge the frustum with nitrogen. This would be a very simple and inexpensive step in building a frustum. This has been mentioned several times before....any disagreements? Please? I've made the calculations and a 1/16" frustum should not collapse with the relatively small amount that the internal pressure is to be reduced.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
How is your build going?
BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.
Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Would suggest you ignore that data, as from what I'm told it is not even close to the paper's results as the thrust is reported to be much higher and uncertainty is much lower.
-
Traveller, What data is it that you suggest we ignore?
-
Traveller, What data is it that you suggest we ignore?
Ignore the thrust was 30-50uN and the min force recordable was 10 to 15uN. From what I'm told that is not correct and that the paper's thrust was much higher and the thrust uncertainty was much lower.
We know from other EW papers that thrust can be measured at the 1uN level. Question is the uncertainty.
-
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better results in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL. Ciao!
BTW thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it, wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or? FL
-
...
BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.
Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?
Where is your info from on this?
This seems to contradict the fact that Yang retracted her original results, because she realized a flaw in the experimental setup, and a better setup did not produce significant force. (I forget if it was a 0, or just below experimental error, but those basically mean the same thing)
-
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL. Ciao!
BTW thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it, wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or? FL
Single freq Rf via solid state Rf amp. Coax feed to 1/2 loop antenna on the side wall as is standard excitation method with accelerator cavities.
Bit smaller than this. More info in the document.
-
...
BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.
Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?
Where is your info from on this?
This seems to contradict the fact that Yang retracted her original results, because she realized a flaw in the experimental setup, and a better setup did not produce significant force. (I forget if it was a 0, or just below experimental error, but those basically mean the same thing)
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
-
Damn! beautiful workmanship!!! Re the "big" build...I was scared off by the comment that was made that the frustum could be resonating well (say in TE013) but not produce thrust. I didn't want to put several thousands of dollars into a build that was going to fail. While I do understand confidentiality and NDAs, there are folks out here like myself who just what to contribute before we leave. Some one on Reddit asked about the size of Emdrives just yesterday...Imagine scaling your TE013 frustum up to the size of the inside diameter of a rocket fairing: +/- 4.5 meters for the base -large diameter...imagine the Q and the concomitant thrust that such a cavity would produce. I only wish to build a x 2 larger cavity that would resonate in the upper Megahertz range. But x 4 the surface area and x 8 the volume...how much would that increase Q?...am looking forward to the day when I can build big cavities and blast away! : ) K
-
Traveller what about antenna like this?
-
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL. Ciao!
BTW thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it, wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or? FL
Single freq Rf via solid state Rf amp. Coax feed to 1/2 loop antenna on the side wall as is standard excitation method with accelerator cavities.
Bit smaller than this. More info in the document.
That's some good looking RF hardware.
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528157#msg1528157)
Yang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).
You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528157#msg1528157)
Yang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).
You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.
Knowing the EmDrive works is not bias, it is fact.
3mN min force on her torsion pendulum is almost unbelievable as DIYers here achieve 10uN or less plus she did not use a min VSWR freq tracker, which means she will never achieve good thrust.
Those are the EmDrive Engineering 101 facts.
-
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the document the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
-
One important part of EmDrive Engineering 101 is understanding why thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth.
As the freq moves off best resonance, two effect occur, Q drops and forward power drops because reflected power increases.
As both Q and Forward power are part of the force equation F = (2 Qu FPwr Df) / c it can be seen that force will drop away much quicker than either the Q drop or the forward power drop alone.
SO, this is why precise freq adjustment MUST track on lowest reflected power or the freq just a bit off may result in very much reduced thrust as both Q and forward drop as the freq moves away from ideal resonance.
I doubt any freq tracking system that adjusts based on a 2nd port sensor as Prof Yang did will ever achieve any significant thrust.
This is not a guess. It is EmDrive Engineering 101. And yes both Roger and another major EmDrive experimenter have verified that thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth. So either blast away with a maggie broad band freq shotgun or develop single freq tracking that works on minimum reflected power as the goal to obtain optimal freq and thrust generation.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.
Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
-
How to design an EmDrive min reflected power freq tracker.
Freq tracking based on a 2nd sense port may or may not work very well. Experience shows the attached works very well, all the time and easily tracks frustum thermally driven dimensional changes. It also stops locking to adjacent undesired modes.
One other very experienced EmDrive builder found that using such a freq tracker (he calls it a S11 tracker) resulted in solid freq locks and much improved thruster performance.
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
Are you implying its operational?
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
Are you implying its operational?
Roger said there would be a demo in 2017. Here he meant of a levitating EmDrive.
-
[sarcasm modus]
hmmmm....
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367028;image)
I thought you said it wasn't magic, yet what do I see there ? ? ? "magic happens inside" ::)
[/sarcasm modus]
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
-
Will this thread be going to part 9 when the AIAA paper is published so that can be pinned to the OP?
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
I think a 2nd antenna would be effective in that you could see when the cavity starts storing energy. The fields would build up inside and the antenna would pick that up. This is when heat generation is maximized. I think Traveller doesn't like the idea of another hole in the frustum to measure this with a 2nd antenna. He would rather use the same antenna and instead I believe measure the DC current on one of the wires going in to the antenna per applied voltage at some frequency. I think this does about the same thing. When heat generation is maximized, because of currents in the cavity, the returned AC wave is slightly less in amplitude than the wave sent. This results in a traveling AC wave symbolic of the power being transmitted to the cavity which can be measured as DC current. This seems to be connected to the VSWR and bypasses the need for a 2nd antenna.
As the frequency changes from resonance the current to the cavity will drop and power won't be lost to the cavity so that the DC component of the AC wave should be lost.
An old link with some more info on reflected waves that form standing waves: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1550968#msg1550968
the image is of a traveling wave moving one direction and the same superimposed traveling wave moving in the opposite direction with slightly less amplitude.
What is interesting is if any extra power was being lost other than just due to heat it should show up in the power lost so maximizing the power lost should be important. Maybe both a 2nd antenna to measure the radiation in the cavity to see what should be being lost as heat as compared to the power lost through the VSWR method could give us an idea if something strange is going on? Like energy being lost due to doing work rather than being lost to heat.
-
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the doc the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
She concluded that the original measured force was almost entirely an artifact. This doesn't rule out that the emDrive works, or that there was an undetectable signal, but it does rule out using either of her experiments as evidence that the emDrive works. It also calls into question anyone claiming to "confirm" the high thrust levels of the original experiment since the original experiment was determined by Yang to be an experimental artifact.
-
Was asked to appear on a Podcast to help celebrate Star Trek's 50th anniversary of the premier TV episode in 1966. This science fact/fiction/fantasy (entertainment) radio show has been diligently following me since the beginning and I agreed to make a guest appearance to help them denote the occasion. Of course, I spoke about all things EmDrive, my summer's test results and its implications for the first time in public:
http://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/dave-distler-9-8-16/
-
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Absolutely false. See hot-air balloon. Gas is free to move in and out of the envelope yet there is buoyancy and lift because the air inside is hotter and therefore less dense than ambient.
This whole simplex1 discussion is moot because the relevant forces can be measured along multiple axes while buoyancy is confined to one.
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
Another side of that question is how to sense the level of reflected power from the input port via a secondary sense port on the frustum?
Sort of like trying to control the rpm of an ICE engine via sampling C02 emissions in the exgaust pipe. Yes there is a relationship but it is not how to effectively monitor & control engine rpm.
-
[sarcasm modus]
hmmmm....
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367028;image)
I thought you said it wasn't magic, yet what do I see there ? ? ? "magic happens inside" ::)
[/sarcasm modus]
Since when isn't software running around inside an embedded microprocessor considered magic?
-
I think a 2nd antenna would be effective in that you could see when the cavity starts storing energy.
Here is a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101.
Take a empty cavity. Apply a Rf 100Wrf signal. Monitor the Forward and Reflected power. It will follow a typical 5 x TC charge curve. IE the Forward power will start out at 0 Watts and slowly increase to full value after 5 cavity TCs. 1 TC being Qu / (2 Pi Freq). Likewise Reflected power will start out at 100W and slowly decrease to the min value as per the final VSWR.
Nothing new here. This is known accelerator cavity engineering as attached.
In fact you can measure the cavity Qu by monitoring the time the Forward power takes to rise from 0 to 63.2% of the final value, that time being 1 cavity TC (Time Constant).
-
There was some discussion of the effect of drag on the Cannae cubesat. The chief assumption, if I'm correct was that the sat would be launched in a "typical" orbit of about a 23.5 degree inclination, and a 150 mile altitude, with about a 90 minute period.
Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector. The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun. This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow.
See the attached sketch.
-
Dear NASA Spaceflight EM Drive forum members,
A short introduction of myself and my plans. I am setting up a replication experiment of the EMdrive. Although I have learned already a lot from the reports, discussions, simulations, etc. you have presented on this forum (I am very impressed what has been done so far), I think I can use some advise now and then so that I can make a useful contribution in this field.
I am a physicist, living in the Netherlands, but not currently working in a field related to this topic (microwave technology or space technology). I have some experience with RF though (but mainly up to 500 MHz) and with the measurement of small forces.
The experiment:
• The forces will be measured with a torsion balance (in the horizontal plane),
• The RF will be rather low power (~5 W), battery-fed, remote controlled or programmed,
• All components will be mounted on the torsion balance arm,
• I will make a frustum that resembles the ones used by Brady et al. (2014),
• Preferably I will work in the range, say, 1.8 – 2.2 GHz (the upper bound is because I have a 6.7 GHz Agilent spectrum analyzer, so I can see at least the next harmonic signal),
• At normal atmospheric pressure (maybe in argon, later). The big vacuum vessel I have access to, cannot really reach high vacuum (indeed, the electric discharge in a bad vacuum…).
• I will very likely also use dielectric inserts in the cavities.
The torsion balance already exists. It uses optical sensors to monitor its position and a magnet-coil system to keep the position ‘fixed’ (so you can say it is not really a torsion balance, the wire is only used as low friction suspension). It was designed for research on other claims of anomalous forces, years ago. The resolution is of the order of 0.2 micronewton, but that will depend on the modifications I am making at the moment (a more compact setup, the damping, etc.).
Therefore:
• Forces in the rance 10 – 50 micronewton will be sufficient for this setup (but, of course, depending on the disturbing signals which the RF system might generate).
Schematically it will look like the attached scheme (I came to realize, though, that VCOs may not be stable enough to remain tuned at resonance and PLLs may be needed).
At the moment I am making my first cavities. Of cylindrical form, in order to experiment with coupling loops, surface treatment of the copper, etc.
I might first experiment with cylindrical cavities on the balance. If forces are observed that are of the same order as what you expect for the conical shapes (i.e., the ‘EMdrive signal’), it might not be useful to proceed.
I will keep you informed, but it may take a month or two before I have anything interesting to write. It is a lot of fun to work on this project, I have to say. I am rather sceptical about the reality of this phenomenon, but even if it turns out it doesn’t exist, I lear a lot and it is a nice technical/scientific challenge.
Cheers,
Peter Lauwer
-
One critical remark I should like to make is that when the force of an EM Drive is only a function of P, Q and the shape&dimensions of the cavity, an EM Drive would be a very simple system and would have been developed out by now. I have the impression that the confusion, e.g. the reported influences of dielectric inserts point at: 1) the positive results are either due to experimental errors, or 2) something more complicated is at work.
But that is nice: more work to do for the experimentalist. '-)
-
Assuming frequency is "dead on" to a given frustum, load time is nearly immediate (some argue less than one second, others less than 2 seconds). This not nearly enough time for thermal forces to come into the mix. Thrusting "should" ostensibly be immediate...once again this is when the frustum and RF being fed in are a match to one another. Later on RF heating of the cavity can create thermal lifting effects, and "warp" the frustum walls, thus sending it out of "tune". Is this not the reason PPL tech and or adjustable end plate are incorporated in many builds? As many have agreed here it's best to be able to tune your antenna, with maggie got's to physically tune the frustum. Traveller reminded me of this.
Thanks FL
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.
Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
There seem to be a lot of time delays in the data of the just released Shawyer report. Does that worry anyone here?
-
Well, I'm still wondering how it should play out in theory for a pulse magnetron 200 kW source in a single 0.2 us pulse but at a small superconducting frustum (1cm - 4cm diameter) ;)
-
Assuming frequency is "dead on" to a given frustum, load time is nearly immediate (some argue leas than one second, others less than 2 seconds). This not nearly enough time for thermal forces to come into the mix. Thrusting "should" ostensibly be immediate...once again this is when the frustum and RF being fed in are a match to one another. Later on RF heating of the cavity can create thermal lifting effects, and "warp" the frustum walls, thus sending it out of "tune". Is this not the reason PPL tech and or adjustable end plate are incorporated in many builds?
Yes? , No? I do want to make sure I've got this right. Thanks FL
The min Reflected power tuning system I developed was very manual and involved doing manual freq changes while observing Reflected power. As my amp has a 31dBm attenuator and inbuilt Forward and Reflected power outputs, it was possible to do the tuning at low power, step up the power a bit, recheck the tuning and step it up to full power without involving much heating. As the Rf amp has a master PA enable, it is possible to do very short pulses of Rf of say 30us and watch the Forward power climb as the Reflected power drops.
5 x TC cavity fill time for my commercial build is around 30us, so in effect it fills and discharges fairly fast.
With this tuning method, which avoids frustum heating while tuning, the frustum once tuned and the Rf power pulsed on for a few seconds, yes the thrust generation is immediate.
Physical tuning is only needed if the Rf source is not freq adjustable as is a maggie, so there you need to physically tune to the maggie freq.
I expect when I receive my 2 thrusters, the initial tuning will take a few seconds but will be done initially at low power and then adjusted, at full power, as the reflected power drifts off min.
This multi stage tuning approach is why I designed a variable attenuator as then initial tuning can be done at low power and not affected by thermal changes that occur at high power.
-
I will keep you informed, but it may take a month or two before I have anything interesting to write. It is a lot of fun to work on this project, I have to say. I am rather sceptical about the reality of this phenomenon, but even if it turns out it doesn’t exist, I lear a lot and it is a nice technical/scientific challenge.
Cheers,
Peter Lauwer
Hi Peter,
Welcome to the club.
I would suggest the EW copper frustum is not a good build to follow as it does not resonate in TE013 mode at 2.45GHz.
Having a working freq tracker that can lock to the lowest VSWR at the target freq and in the target mode is vital.
Build accuracy and high polish are critical as are antenna design, position and orientation.
You need to be able to model the frustum and check for resonance in the desired mode, which can be determined by observing the end plate eddy current patterns which are unique to each TMxy and TExy mode.
It is not easy to build a working EmDrive but as time progresses the basics of EmDrive Engineering 101 are starting to be understood.
Monomorphic runs a builders only forum at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueEmDrive/
I have one at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
-
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
Another side of that question is how to sense the level of reflected power from the input port via a secondary sense port on the frustum?
Sort of like trying to control the rpm of an ICE engine via sampling C02 emissions in the exgaust pipe. Yes there is a relationship but it is not how to effectively monitor & control engine rpm.
But the purpose of high Q is related to the field strength in the cavity, and a second port is perfect to just sense that. VSWR, on the other hand, is indirect because it senses power loss, which is proportional to the square of field strength. You used a not so accurate analogy, but you did not answer my question.
-
Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector
Incorrect statement. On the contrary, it is well known that atmospheric drag is minimized by minimizing the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the drag force.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)
Thus, the minimum drag orientation is indeed flying with solar array paralell to the orbital velocity vector. This is known in Aerospace Engineering as flying "edge on" or flying in the low-drag feathered position. Flying edge on significantly reduces drag (as it is easy to verify by calculation, since the drag is proportional to the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the drag force).
If flying a spacecraft with solar arrays on gimbals, in the edge-on position the alpha gimbal is fixed. If desired, the alpha gimbal could be removed to lower weight.
This is what was assumed in my calculations: edge-on flying, with no gimbal, the solar array being fixed to the Cubesat, as in Cannae's picture.
The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun. This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow....
No. There is no law that imposes such a solar-array orientation as the only option.
When designing a solar array orientation for a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) there are several options for orientation of the solar array:
1) Sun pointing
The spacecraft may maintain (if so desired) a fixed orientation with respect to Earth, and a gimbal (alpha gimbal) can be used to track the Sun as the spacecraft rotates in orbit. A beta gimbal (rotation around the longitudinal axis of the solar arrays) can compensate for variations in the angle of the Sun to the orbital plane.
This is not the only alternative.
You propose a more extreme version of the sun-pointing configuration where the solar-array is fixed to the Cubesat and hence the whole Cubesat has to rotate continuously in order to keep Sun-pointing all the time.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367201;image)
This is a flying configuration that produces a much greater drag force.
In addition, since you are using no gimbals, you have to rotate the whole spacecraft to accomplish your proposed Sun-pointing at all times. Thus, you propose, as the only choice available, a flying configuration that produces greater drag, and that in addition requires rotating the spacecraft.
If one calculates this, one arrives at the conclusion that flying with sun-pointing configuration at all times will require a thrust that exceeds the published claims for copper EM Drive. (The kind of EM Drive that Cannae is reporting will fly in this mission). (*)
2) Hybrid. For example Sun pointing during iluminated position of orbit, and edge on during eclipse (to minimize drag). During eclipse the solar array can be gimbaled edge on to the orbital velocity vector, which will require a rotation of ~70 to 75 degrees twice per orbital period.
For example, the ISS adopts a hybrid solar array orientation: it points the solar array at the Sun (and takes the drag penalty) when in light, goes into a perpendicular mode in the dark. The ISS "furls" its solar panels when in darkness.
3) Edge on during the entire orbit. This is the option that what was assumed to minimize drag in my calculations, since EM Drive's (assuming that they would work somehow) are very limited in the thrust/PowerInput available. This was made very clear in the calculations.
This is what was assumed: edge-on flying during the entire orbit, with no gimbal, the solar array being fixed to the Cubesat, as in Cannae's picture:
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/35/980x490/landscape-1472765657-cannae-12.png)
Flying with the solar-arrays "edge-on" means that the amount of power available from the solar arrays will be decreased. This reduction was explicitly taken into account in my analysis !
Flying edge-on during the entire orbit, besides minimizing drag, has the advantage that it keeps the spacecraft facing the Earth at all times, which may be beneficial for missions to monitor the Earth.
This is not an option that is impossible, or that I invented "out of thin air". It is a well-known configuration option.
See articles by G. Landis and C. Lu, (AIAA) and by Anigstein and Sanchez Pena (IEEE) on analysis of solar panel orientation in low altitude satellites.
You state that flying with the solar-arrays Sun-pointing all the time is the only option. This is not so. It is simple to run the numbers and show that the option you appear to consider as the only possible option (Sun-pointing) will require significantly greater thrust, and that according to published claims for a copper EM Drive (if it were to work as claimed) would not be able to overcome.
____
(*) As a minor detail, being picky, the sketch and absolutist demand for such a complete rotation once per orbit needs further consideration. As we all know, the Earth rotates around the Sun once per _year_ (the Earth's orbit). Hence, the sun rotates once per _year_ in an inertial reference frame tied to the Earth's orbit Not once per spacecraft_orbit_.
The ISS itself rotates once per orbit to keep one side always looking at the Earth (it has an "up" and a "down" side - the cupola, for example, is on the down side and always points at the Earth) and that means that its solar panels _counterrotate_ when the Sun is up.
Hence the Sun-pointing option, besides involving greater drag, involves a level of complexity that is undesirable for a smallsat mission like the one proposed by Cannae.
By contrast, the flying "edge on" or flying in the low-drag feathered position is much simpler, involving minimum drag, and complexity.
-
Monomorphic runs a builders only forum at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueEmDrive/
As a correction, I'm a moderator of https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/ not /r/TrueEmdrive/
-
Peter, the NASA frustum operated best (force/watt) at TE012 (I don't believe TE013 was ever modeled or tried for). The sim of TE012 works well but with the antenna(s) in a different position.
NASA had difficulty operating their frustum inTE012 with the antenna in the original position on the side...(couldn't get more than 2.6 Watts into it at 1.8804 GHz + other modes close by).
If you want to keep everything the same in the NASA frustum TM212 is the way to go, but the Q is not nearly as high as with TE012. X_Ray just recently (a few pages back) showed some sims as to why TM 212 was much easier to stimulate than TE012. I'll go back and try to locate the specific page(s).
Attached is the NASA frustum 1st in TE012 and 2nd in TM212 (marked TM211) FL
These sims were performed by X_Ray. Thank you X_Ray
-
Roger said there would be a demo in 2017. Here he meant of a levitating EmDrive.
Meaning no disrespect, I'll believe it when I see it.
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
There is An UCAV technology demonstrator project underway !
TARANIS
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis
several companies involved as
QinetiQ , Rolls Royce , BAE Systems, are all British aerospace companies
They could be working on a VTOL version with emdrive ?
-
First question, Is there a way to use constructive interference with multiple frequency gens and amps to increase the amount of power transmitted into the frustum? Obviously you would need to synchronize with a small margin of error.
Second question, does multi-phase (like your homes power) resonate at the base frequency? or does the phase shift screw all that up?
Thanks in advance.
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
there is technology demonstrator project underway !
TARANIS
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis
several companies involved as
QinetiQ , Rolls Royce , BAE Systems, are all British aerospace companies
They could be working on a VTOL version with Emdrive ?
Hmmm no.
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://youtu.be/nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
-
There was some discussion of the effect of drag on the Cannae cubesat. The chief assumption, if I'm correct was that the sat would be launched in a "typical" orbit of about a 23.5 degree inclination, and a 150 mile altitude, with about a 90 minute period.
Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector. The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun. This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow.
See the attached sketch.
It doesn't HAVE to keep a solar pointing attitude. It could have sufficient array area combined with batteries to accommodate the varying solar power input. It HAS to have some anyways to survive eclipsing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
Very unlikely, IMO. Taranis was always designed to fill the niche of low-observable, unmanned combat drone, with the same envisioned timeframes as the US' own programs, and aircraft systems integration is increasingly time consuming, especially in multinational endeavors. Packing in experimental propulsion technology that can barely be shown to work into a new combat air system that's already been in development for ten years would be an extra layer of complexity that would gravely endanger the whole program, and force them to find a new way to field any sort of drone based air combatant should the propulsion elements fail. With respect to the solid black bars, it looks like the video is censored. The exhaust system is something BAE's been particularly secretive about, presumably for classified infrared signature reduction features.
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
If you watch it closely, especially when the landing gear retract, it looks like CGI animation. I bet VAX could verify if that's the case.
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
Very unlikely, IMO. Taranis was always designed to fill the niche of low-observable, unmanned combat drone, with the same envisioned timeframes as the US' own programs, and aircraft systems integration is increasingly time consuming, especially in multinational endeavors. Packing in experimental propulsion technology that can barely be shown to work into a new combat air system that's already been in development for ten years would be an extra layer of complexity that would gravely endanger the whole program, and force them to find a new way to field any sort of drone based air combatant should the propulsion elements fail. With respect to the solid black bars, it looks like the video is censored. The exhaust system is something BAE's been particularly secretive about, presumably for classified infrared signature reduction features.
I can see where they would do CGI over the exhausts. Thanks.
Shell
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet... :-X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo)
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.
Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
A phase change wax can work well for a short duration test to sort out physics, but once the phase change is completed, temperature will run away again. Eventually we will need something that can operate in a cycle, like a heat pipe or the frustum acting as an evaporator in a vapor compression cycle. A frustum could make a nice steam generator!
-
Just wanted to add a couple of things to this overview of solar array positioning.
There are several attitude options for a solar powered vehicle in LEO:
1) LVLH - Local Vertical Local Horizontal. Basically the vehicle flys like an airplane with the same side of the vehicle always facing Earth.
If you have an alpha gimbal it rotates around 4deg/min. Power is maximized (especially if a beta gimbal is also available) but drag increases when the arrays are face on to the velocity vector.
If the arrays are fixed facing vertical the vehicle recieves the most power at solar noon. Drag is reduced as the arrays remain edge on for the entire orbit. Power is reduced compared to alpha tracking, (beta angle losses can be mitigated if other constraints allow rolling the vehicle to reduce effective beta angle)
Arrays fixed facing directly into or away from the velocity vector significantly increase drag and reduce power below the other LVLH options but may be required due to other constraints, (comm, thermal, thruster, etc).
2)Solar Inertial. The vehicle attitude remains fixed in relation to the sun. This maximizes power even without gimbals at the expense of some drag as the vehicle rotates the array face into and out of the velocity vector.
3)Various Spin Attitudes - these are generally good for thermal issues as all sides of the vehicle spend time in the sun.
There are other attitudes but probably aren't applicable here. The ISS has flown many of these attitudes over the years but these days the only acceptable long term attiude is LVLH +XVV or -XVV
The array biasing schemes for the ISS are also a bit more complicated than just for drag reduction. Sometime you want to increase drag to lower altitude to be in place to rendezvous with another vehicle. We also bias to increase power at high beta angles where one array starts to shadow another.
The constraints this 6U cubesat EM drive test article will have to deal with will be partly influenced by the:
- direction of the EM drive thrust
- solar array gimbal capability of the satellite
- orbit to orbit power requirements across 6 months of beta angle changes
- comm requirements
- thermal constraints.
Among others.
Solar array pointing ca actually be a huge pain in the ass.
-
Re the drone...I always like to observe very carefully. I've never seen a structure like this which appears to be smack dab in the middle of the center of gravity. Notice the round structure in the middle. Comments folks? I don't have a clue. This reminds me of "Project Greenglow" Is this image seen in the video a true representation? Note the turbine extended (sticking out) of the back (not seen in vid) Hmmm...I don't think they'd be that flagrant about spilling the secret beans. Still...damned interesting!
-
Peter, the NASA frustum operated best (force/watt) at TE012 (I don't believe TE013 was ever modeled or tried for). The sim of TE012 works well but with the antenna(s) in a different position.
NASA had difficulty operating their frustum in TE012 with the antenna in the original position on the side...(couldn't get more than 2.6 Watts into it at 1.8804 GHz + other modes close by).
If you want to keep everything the same in the NASA frustum TM212 is the way to go, but the Q is not nearly as high as with TE012. X_Ray just recently (a few pages back) showed some sims as to why TM 212 was much easier to stimulate than TE012. I'll go back and try to locate the specific page(s).
Attached is the NASA frustum 1st in TE012 and 2nd in TM212 (marked TM211) FL
Thanks a lot, FL. I certainly want to try out several modes, certainly the TM212 and TE012.
-
The Taranis powerplant is well known: a Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk951 dual flow, moderate by-pass ratio turbofan jet engine. It is a collaborative engine between Rolls-Royce of the UK and Turbomeca (SAFRAN S.A.) of France, with a thrust range from 28.9 kN (6,570 lbf) dry to 37.4 kN (8,500lbf) with reheat. ( http://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/engine-partnerships/partnerships/adour/adour )
Compare these thrust ranges (over 30,000 Newtons) with what has been claimed for the EM Drive:
NASA: less than 100 microNewtons, Shawyer: less than 175 milliNewtons.
Several orders of magnitude less !
That is 300 million times less for NASA and 170,000 times less for Shawyer's claims.
The improvements in the Adour 951 engine include the use of optimised materials in the hot section for higher durability, a new fan design to provide higher thrust and digital rather than hydrodynamic control. Full authority digital engine control (FADEC) will provide engine surge protection, and automated control and recovery. It has a target maintenance interval of 4,000 hours.
Adour was originally developed primarily to power the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar fighter-bomber, achieving its first successful test run in 1968, practically 50 years ago !
More than 3,000 Rolls-Royce Adours have been produced, for over 20 different armed forces with total flying hours reaching 8 million in December 2009.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/RRTurbomecaAdour.JPG/300px-RRTurbomecaAdour.JPG)
(https://mcgraphics.blob.core.windows.net/blogimages/1380/image2.jpg)
(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_UAV_Neuron_Mock-up_Paris_2005_lg.jpg)
Pictures of the exhaust while flying:
(https://onfinalofficial.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/6200f-dew.jpg)
(http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/06/766-taranis-inflight-2.jpg)
-
Has anyone tried suspending one of these emdrive test articles in a fluid medium? I would be interested to know whether there is any chance that the thrust-section of the frustrum causes any sort of cavitation.
-
Re the drone...I always like to observe very carefully. I've never seen a structure like this which appears to be smack dab in the middle of the center of gravity. Notice the round structure in the middle. Comments folks? I don't have a clue. This reminds me of "Project Greenglow" Is this image seen in the video a true representation? Note the turbine extended (sticking out) of the back (not seen in vid) Hmmm...I don't think they'd be that flagrant about spilling the secret beans. Still...damned interesting!
This resembles the inlet of the turbine.
-
Here is another possible way to measure "thrust" using two of these devices: Bolt two of them together facing each other but with a "squeeze-ometer" in between. Power on both and see if there is any squeezing going on. I understand there are squeeze meters that can measure the Casimir affect so they must be super sensitive. Doing that would also allow you to orient the assembly in any orientation you want and the squeeze should remain.
-
Thread cleaned of nonsense.
1) Do not insult other members. If they are talking nonsense, provide your reasoning. If could be 2,000 words long, but if it includes "you're an idiot" you're losing your post. Forum rules.
2) Don't multiquote to crazy levels. It makes people go blind when reading.
3) If you're only here to say "It doesn't work", you're trolling. You may be right, but posting it 10 times doesn't make you win an argument.
4) Turn off your "sent via tapatalk via my iphone" setting if using tapatalk. It's annoying.
These threads have been very civil over recent months, so the alerts today to nonsense means we stop it immediately and that's why we did today, to the benefit of those providing interesting posts.
-
Here is a thought. Let's measure the power in through the antenna. Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum. Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time. Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat.
If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat. We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated? Bad or good idea?
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet... :-X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo)
Looks alot like the Northrup XB47B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gG-EFqrndM
-
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)
I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.
Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.
Shell
I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet... :-X
Well there better be some place for the air to go in and the exhaust from the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine to exit. It is well documented that this is the actual engine in use on this vehicle.
I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.
-
Well I did not back track enough to see we were talking Taranis not X-47.
I believe the Taranis is basically the same design with respect to stealth features. And Uses an existing engine as Dr. Rodal pointed out below.
-
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Would suggest you ignore that data, as from what I'm told it is not even close to the paper's results as the thrust is reported to be much higher and uncertainty is much lower.
In this, TT is correct.
-
I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.
Time to let it go, MaxIsp, I was just joking around. I guess I should have used more smiley faces to better communicate that fact...
Besides, everybody knows that the military's real EM Drive testbed is actually the X-37B. They've been performing extensive in orbit EM Drive testing under the cover of testing a Hall Effect thruster since 2015. ::) :-X :o ??? ::)
-
I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.
Time to let it go, MaxIsp, I was just joking around. I guess I should have used more smiley faces to better communicate that fact...
Besides, everybody knows that the military's real EM Drive testbed is actually the X-37B. They've performing extensive in orbit EM Drive testing under the cover of testing a Hall Effect thruster since 2015. ::) :-X :o ??? ::)
I think my visual filter on smiley faces was turned on or my eyesight is just getting worse. Those are just fuzzy yellow dots....
Right?
Thanks.
Back to EMdrive design, building, testing.
-
In this, TT is correct.
I'm told the EW paper is in circulation.
Highly doubt AIAA will be the 1st to do a public release of the paper.
Then there is what happened after the 2015 in vac test program was completed and what happened after that next test program was completed.
-
Where is the paper? Is it possible to download a copy from somewhere?
-
Where is the paper? Is it possible to download a copy from somewhere?
It's not published until December.
-
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation. does that just mean in academic circles?
-
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation. does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.
Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.
-
Here is a thought. Let's measure the power in through the antenna. Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum. Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time. Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat.
If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat. We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated? Bad or good idea?
Another test is to completely enclose the device and put it into a neutral buoyancy tank. Also, short of space itself, one could set up some tests in zero gee with the vomit comet. Net thrust ought to be evident over the thirty second or so zero gee phase.
-
Here is a thought. Let's measure the power in through the antenna. Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum. Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time. Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat.
If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat. We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated? Bad or good idea?
Another test is to completely enclose the device and put it into a neutral buoyancy tank. Also, short of space itself, one could set up some tests in zero gee with the vomit comet. Net thrust ought to be evident over the thirty second or so zero gee phase.
neutral buoyancy could still be effected by thermal gradients. Zero gee in the vomit comet I think has been mentioned before by someone I think but you would be limited on time and costs but maybe. You might still have the problem of thermal gradients in the vomit comet also.
The idea of just measuring the power put in and the increase in heat is to eliminate force measurements plagued by other effects and look for thermal anomalies. If something is escaping the cavity and carrying away momentum it should show up as missing energy.
-
I came across a treasure-trove of magnetrons at an electronics flea market yesterday. I didn't buy them.
-
Thermal buoyancy could still be effected by thermal gradients. Zero gee in the vomit comet I think has been mentioned before by someone I think but you would be limited on time and costs but maybe. You might still have the problem of thermal gradients in the vomit comet also.
The idea of just measuring the power put in and the increase in heat is to eliminate force measurements plagued by other effects and look for thermal anomalies. If something is escaping the cavity and carrying away momentum it should show up as missing energy.
Forgot to mention just floating the device in a large controlled enclosed space with helium balloons or configured as a mini Zeppelin. If accelerations of at least 0.01 m/s2 could be achieved it would be pretty clear it works.
-
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation. does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.
Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.
mmmm, for once I agree with TT (but don't get used to that!)
Unless a paper is really controversial (like this might be the case) or it contains very sensitive information (again, this might be the case) it's rather common practice among scholars to circulate their papers in their circles, usually even before submitting, precisely to have a better grasp of the (informed) public's reaction.
Myself (a scholar in a completely different field) I always circulate my working papers well before they even go to review to get comments & suggestions back.
-
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation. does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.
Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.
mmmm, for once I agree with TT (but don't get used to that!)
Unless a paper is really controversial (like this might be the case) or it contains very sensitive information (again, this might be the case) it's rather common practice among scholars to circulate their papers in their circles, usually even before submitting, precisely to have a better grasp of the (informed) public's reaction.
Myself (a scholar in a completely different field) I always circulate my working papers well before they even go to review to get comments & suggestions back.
You've laid out two very good reasons this paper may not have been circulated far.
-
Does anyone have any recent information on the laser interferometer ("warp field") experiments at Eagleworks, related to the EM Drive?
I hear quite a bit about it last year but not since...
-
Does anyone have any recent information on the laser interferometer ("warp field") experiments at Eagleworks, related to the EM Drive?
I hear quite a bit about it last year but not since...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1579130#msg1579130
Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities
Marco Frasca
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
-
A lot of physics could be extracted by further
analysis of this perturbation equations in different situations that at present can be
managed only numerically.
The special case of four dimensions implies that, being the energy-momentum tensor
of the electromagnetic field traceless, the scalar field does not couple directly with the
electromagnetic field
I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the passages I quote above. Rather, I ask those that do understand them...
Would Frasca's Brans-Dicke model for EM Drive operation make any other easily testable predictions? Any chance a theory like this could account for flyby anomalies?
-
A lot of physics could be extracted by further
analysis of this perturbation equations in different situations that at present can be
managed only numerically.
The special case of four dimensions implies that, being the energy-momentum tensor
of the electromagnetic field traceless, the scalar field does not couple directly with the
electromagnetic field
I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the passages I quote above. Rather, I ask those that do understand them...
Would Frasca's Brans-Dicke model for EM Drive operation make any other easily testable predictions? Any chance a theory like this could account for flyby anomalies?
The first quote just points out that the equations we have to cope with are too much complicated that, to solve them, generally a computer is needed. This is an ongoing activity with a lot of interesting results so far. But you can fix any geometry, like that of a frustum, and you will get a general solution by putting all the data into a machine and let it crunch them. Anyhow, in the case at hand, some simple approximations can help to avoid to use a computer and get some useful equation to understand what is going on.
The second quote just states that the gravitational constant, that in Brans-Dicke model is not really a constant, can change inside the frustum in a significant way. This can only happen through the square of the energy density of the e.m. field by an indirect coupling with the warped space-time inside the truncated cone because the effect of the e.m. field is not a direct one on the gravitational constant.
Testable predictions can be extended to laser interferometry, an ongoing activity at EW labs, but, having a complete theory, you can think to build any setup and compute the expected effects.
I would like to emphasize that, if it is confirmed that Brans-Dicke model is at work inside the frustum, this would be already a breakthrough in physics.
-
The second quote just states that the gravitational constant, that in Brans-Dicke model is not really a constant, can change inside the frustum in a significant way. This can only happen through the square of the energy density of the e.m. field by an indirect coupling with the warped space-time inside the truncated cone because the effect of the e.m. field is not a direct one on the gravitational constant.
Testable predictions can be extended to laser interferometry, an ongoing activity at EW labs, but, having a complete theory, you can think to build any setup and compute the expected effects.
I would like to emphasize that, if it is confirmed that Brans-Dicke model is at work inside the frustum, this would be already a breakthrough in physics.
Marco, I have three questions:
1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?
2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?
3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?
-
Though I put this in a separate thread, this was an error it's really more applicable in here being an example of an asymmetry from what little I now understand, which is probably wrong.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/floquet-time-crystals-could-exist-and.html?m=1
-
...
Marco, I have three questions:
1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?
2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?
3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?
1) Differently form Minotti's approach, Brans-Dicke theory (it is not mine) is a model accepted by the community since '60s. It has been a workhorse to unveil possible deviations from general relativity. It introduces a set of constants, the most important is omega, that provide an understanding about how Einstein's equations could change. For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
2) Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.
3) No, I fear this is impossible.
-
Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.
So, a resonating symmetrical cavity with high Q factor, due to the highly concentrated EM field, will alter the gravitational constant (and be testable using laser interferometry), but will not produce any thrust because this alteration is symmetrical in relation to the cavity's center of mass?
The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?
-
For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show.
Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.
But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?
-
...
So, a resonating symmetrical cavity with high Q factor, due to the highly concentrated EM field, will alter the gravitational constant (and be testable using laser interferometry), but will not produce any thrust because this alteration is symmetrical in relation to the cavity's center of mass?
The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?
This was already discussed with Dr. Rodal. Newton constant does not count in this case. All you need is an asymmetry. With the original computation, you needed practically a cone to get a tiny effect. Here, due to the change in the Newton constant, the need for a conical cavity can be dismissed.
-
...
Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.
But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?
The scalar field in the Brans-Dicke theory is a genuine relativistic scalar field while the component of the metric gtt reduces to Newton potential (let me call it V rather than φ to avoid confusion) in the limit of weak fields. The Newton potential enters into the metric tensor (the way geometry is changed) while the scalar field of the Brans-Dicke theory just decides what value should take locally the Newton constant.
About the stress-energy tensor, you are right. There is no generally accepted definition for it in general relativity. But I am working with weak fields and there is no problem whatsoever in this case. Also, I am using a covariant form of stress-energy tensor as was originally formulated by Landau and Lifshitz and generally accepted in the scientific community.
-
...
Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.
But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?
The scalar field in the Brans-Dicke theory is a genuine relativistic scalar field while the component of the metric gtt reduces to Newton potential (let me call it V rather than φ to avoid confusion) in the limit of weak fields. The Newton potential enters into the metric tensor (the way geometry is changed) while the scalar field of the Brans-Dicke theory just decides what value should take locally the Newton constant.
About the stress-energy tensor, you are right. There is no generally accepted definition for it in general relativity. But I am working with weak fields and there is no problem whatsoever in this case. Also, I am using a covariant form of stress-energy tensor as was originally formulated by Landau and Lifshitz and generally accepted in the scientific community.
Dr. Frasca, any comments on latest upper limit experimental observations of the change of G with time and space, would be appreciated
Reference:
page 110 (for change with time) of Wheeler's book:
http://bit.ly/2cR6KAv
Gravitation and Inertia
By Ciufolini and Wheeler
Princeton University Press
ISBN-10: 0691033234
ISBN-13: 978-0691033235
Also page 111 change in G with space.
It has been 20+ years since this book was published. So comments are appreciated.
Also
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
where
Glab = value of G measured in the lab using nearby masses
G∞= G far from the gravity generating body
Wheeler also writes that Brans Dicke ω >~620 from light deflection measurements, Radar time delay experiments and especially the Lunar Laser Ranging analysis.
Comments on the constraint on the minimum value for Brans Dicke ω >~620 and its ramifications for the EM Drive calculations, are also appreciated.
Thanks
Attachment: a chart from Chen (2015) showing larger minimum values for Brans Dicke ω
-
Just to say I'm fascinated by the latest exchanges of Dr. Frasca and other knowledgeable posters. Seems like this could be a strong candidate to explain both the thrust and the puzzling optical effects reported by Star Drive... and it could offer proof of an alternative to Einstein's GR.
Exciting developments.
-
...
Dr. Frasca, any comments on latest upper limit experimental observations of the change of G with time and space, would be appreciated
Reference:
page 110 (for change with time) of Wheeler's book:
http://bit.ly/2cR6KAv
Gravitation and Inertia
By Ciufolini and Wheeler
Princeton University Press
ISBN-10: 0691033234
ISBN-13: 978-0691033235
Also page 111 change in G with space.
It has been 20+ years since this book was published. What is the latest data regarding upper limit observations for changes in G in time and in space?
Also
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
where
Glab = value of G measured in the lab using nearby masses
G∞= G far from the gravity generating body
Wheeler also writes that Brans Dicke ω >~620 from light deflection measurements, Radar time delay experiments and especially the Lunar Laser Ranging analysis.
Comments on Brans Dicke ω >~620 and its ramifications for the EM Drive calculations, are also appreciated.
Thanks
These are really interesting questions. The frustum with a localized energy density is a rather lucky situation. Due to the fact that the energy density arises from an e.m. field, the omega constant is not relevant at all for the discussion. People generally takes it to be very large to get agreement with general relativity but I would like to emphasize that the discussion of how one recovers general relativity from Brans-Dicke theory has gone an extended discussion in these later years. This limit is not so easy to understand and, in some cases, it is not just to take omega becoming larger. This is especially true for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell theory.
What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered.
As soon as I will get some time, I will put done some mathematical worksheet to get numerical values for the gravitational constant inside the frustum. Of course, I should invent values to put in as we are all expecting December...
-
The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?
Q varies with the mode. TE212 with or without a dielectric has a lower Q than TE013.
-
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result. Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, requires small value of Brans-Dicke ω for a significant change in (1-Glab/G∞) and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover 1-Glab/G∞=0
-
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result. Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover Glab=G∞
There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.
-
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result. Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover Glab=G∞
There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.
And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?
I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...
-
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result. Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:
Glab≈G∞[1-U/(ω+2)] Eq. 3.2.25
which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover Glab=G∞
There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.
Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
-
...
And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?
I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...
Because nobody studied large concentrations of e.m.field energy in a small volume and nobody thought to put it on a pendulum. Please, note that the solution outside the cavity is the Newton constant. This is smoothly joined with the inside solution. On a large (cosmological) scale, Brans-Dicke model coincides with general relativity provided at least omega is large enough (indeed, for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell model things are not that simple).
Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
-
...
Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
-
Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?
-
Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?
This is an interesting question. The answer relies on the simple fact that, while e.m. fields are shielded by the cavity and so, no net momentum can be observed, gravitational disturbances can escape the cavity providing the needed reaction.
-
...
And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?
I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...
Because nobody studied large concentrations of e.m.field energy in a small volume and nobody thought to put it on a pendulum. Please, note that the solution outside the cavity is the Newton constant. This is smoothly joined with the inside solution. On a large (cosmological) scale, Brans-Dicke model coincides with general relativity provided at least omega is large enough (indeed, for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell model things are not that simple).
Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
Consider the case of an astrophysical maser: a naturally occurring source of stimulated emission, in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. A naturally occurring analog of the man-made man-invented MASER. (*)
(http://www.naic.edu/~astro/highlights/artistconcept.jpg)
(http://images.nrao.edu/images/Blackhole1_lo.jpg)
(https://science.nrao.edu/science/highlights/fy2011-1/images/Untitled2.png)
However, naturally occurring masers lack the resonant cavity engineered for terrestrial laboratory MASERs.
Now think of the Brans Dicke solution you obtained for the asymmetric resonant cavity, where it experiences an acceleration as a result of gravity in this Brans Dicke model. Can you think of a naturally occurring cosmological events that can function as an equivalent of the asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity ?
Of course it is hopeless to find a naturally occurring event that has a copper asymmetric cavity. A copper asymmetric cavity is clearly a man-made object. But just like astrophysical masers are naturally occurring analogs of man-made Masers, that lack the resonant cavity of man-made Masers, it would be interesting if there would be a naturally occurring analog of your solution as well.
Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:
A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course ;) )
B) it may further and more strongly validate your solution, which would be interesting, given the controversial nature of EM Drive experiments up to now.
----------------------
(*) Before their discovery in 1965, many scientists thought that molecules could not exist in space. The emission was at first attributed to an unknown form of interstellar matter named by UC Berkeley astronomers as Mysterium see: http://bit.ly/2cSmIWL ;), but the emission was soon identified by Harvard and MIT astronomers as line emission from OH molecules in compact sources within molecular clouds.
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/images/466928a-f1.2.jpg)
Later, H2O emission in 1969, CH3OH emission in 1970 and SiO emission in 1974 were discovered, all coming from within molecular clouds. These were termed "masers", as from their narrow line-widths and high effective temperatures it became clear that these sources were amplifying microwave radiation.
Even later, naturally occurring Masers were discovered around highly evolved Late-type stars . Naturally occurring Masers were also discovered in external galaxies in 1973, and in the Solar System in comet halos.
Another unexpected discovery was made in 1982 with the discovery of emission from an extra-galactic source with an unrivalled luminosity about 106 times larger than any previous source. This was termed a megamaser because of its great luminosity; many more megamasers have since been discovered.
-
.....As soon as I will get some time, I will put done some mathematical worksheet to get numerical values for the gravitational constant inside the frustum. Of course, I should invent values to put in as we are all expecting December...
I have to say that it would be very interesting to see calculations based on this approach to compare with known results from some of the builders here as well as published results. For instance, if they are close then we may have a guide as to how many artifacts a particular apparatus is introducing.
And can I say that this forum really amazes me at times!! The dialog today between Dr. Frasca, Dr. Rodal and others has been pure pleasure!!
-
...
Marco, I have three questions:
1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?
2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?
3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?
1) Differently form Minotti's approach, Brans-Dicke theory (it is not mine) is a model accepted by the community since '60s. It has been a workhorse to unveil possible deviations from general relativity. It introduces a set of constants, the most important is omega, that provide an understanding about how Einstein's equations could change. For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
2) Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.
3) No, I fear this is impossible.
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
-
Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?
This is an interesting question. The answer relies on the simple fact that, while e.m. fields are shielded by the cavity and so, no net momentum can be observed, gravitational disturbances can escape the cavity providing the needed reaction.
Would it be possible that what is happening in the cavity is the index of free space may be being modified (by the idea you mentioned), changing the mass of light. As the light gains mass/slows in time, there is a back reaction on the dielectric of free space pushing the free space back, and as the light strikes the front of the cavity, the light provides more impulse than it did at the back of the cavity. Energy is then lost from the light to the vacuum.
This polarizeable vacuum possibly being some mix of matter/anti-matter. The anti-matter being negative mass but runs backwards in time (Similar to Richard Feynman's proposal Wiki Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory)) so appears to be positive mass but reverse in charge. This anti-matter having the effect of modifying time (This may be my own modification of the idea so far as I am aware) when it is polarized in the presence of normal matter leading to the effects of Lorentz contraction for fast moving objects or large gravitational bodies. Gravity being some gradient in the passage of time or possibly the vacuum being accelerated because of the gradient in time?
The idea coming from papers concerning light being measured to have more momentum inside water, having a higher index of refraction, and them having measured a back reaction of the light when entering the water. Is it possible with the vacuum too?
Or is this not really connected to what your talking about?
The Woodward effect is also mentioned in the wiki link at the bottom.
Closed timelike curves?
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.3
-
...
Consider the case of an astrophysical maser: a naturally occurring source of stimulated emission, in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. A naturally occurring analog of the man-made man-invented MASER. (*)
(http://www.naic.edu/~astro/highlights/artistconcept.jpg)
(http://images.nrao.edu/images/Blackhole1_lo.jpg)
(https://science.nrao.edu/science/highlights/fy2011-1/images/Untitled2.png)
However, naturally occurring masers lack the resonant cavity engineered for terrestrial laboratory MASERs.
Now think of the Brans Dicke solution you obtained for the asymmetric resonant cavity, where it experiences an acceleration as a result of gravity in this Brans Dicke model. Can you think of a naturally occurring cosmological events that can function as an equivalent of the asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity ?
Of course it is hopeless to find a naturally occurring event that has a copper asymmetric cavity. A copper asymmetric cavity is clearly a man-made object. But just like astrophysical masers are naturally occurring analogs of man-made Masers, that lack the resonant cavity of man-made Masers, it would be interesting if there would be a naturally occurring analog of your solution as well.
Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:
A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course ;) )
B) it may further and more strongly validate your solution, which would be interesting, given the controversial nature of EM Drive experiments up to now.
----------------------
(*) Before their discovery in 1965, many scientists thought that molecules could not exist in space. The emission was at first attributed to an unknown form of interstellar matter named by UC Berkeley astronomers as Mysterium see: http://bit.ly/2cSmIWL ;), but the emission was soon identified by Harvard and MIT astronomers as line emission from OH molecules in compact sources within molecular clouds.
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/images/466928a-f1.2.jpg)
Later, H2O emission in 1969, CH3OH emission in 1970 and SiO emission in 1974 were discovered, all coming from within molecular clouds. These were termed "masers", as from their narrow line-widths and high effective temperatures it became clear that these sources were amplifying microwave radiation.
Even later, naturally occurring Masers were discovered around highly evolved Late-type stars . Naturally occurring Masers were also discovered in external galaxies in 1973, and in the Solar System in comet halos.
Another unexpected discovery was made in 1982 with the discovery of emission from an extra-galactic source with an unrivalled luminosity about 106 times larger than any previous source. This was termed a megamaser because of its great luminosity; many more megamasers have since been discovered.
Dr. Rodal, I am not an expert in cosmology unfortunately. People were going on looking for substantial differences between Brans-Dicke and Eisntein theories but, so far, it was only possible to fix a higher limit on omega. On a scale for a cosmological maser, I would expect no significant difference between these two models. But things could be interesting if the intensity of the emitted e.m. radiation by the cosmological maser is large enough to get a backreaction on gravity. This, in turn, could modify the value of the coupling constant making possible to observe some deviations, even if really small. This effect is similar to that of the resonant cavity. Otherwise, we can safely neglect any correction due to the scalar field and take it a constant. The game changer for the resonant cavity is just the energy density of the e.m. field in a small volume.
Let me emphasize, once again, that if this effect should be confirmed in the resonant cavity, consequences for our understanding of gravity would be overwhelming.
-
Q varies with the mode. TE212 with or without a dielectric has a lower Q than TE013.
I wasn't asking about the dielectric and I specifically stated that Q should be constant for the purposes of my inquiry.
Intuitively, just by looking at monomorphic's resonant cavity renderings, it appears to me as though a TE013 mode results in a high EM field density locus that is further from the center of mass of the frustum than it is in the case of a TE012 mode.
https://youtu.be/wBRY6jwERQY
https://youtu.be/E27Y5fjprs0
What I'm asking is, with Q being equal (the Q factor, as defined as 2π times the ratio of the stored energy to the energy dissipated per oscillation cycle (is that the definition we settled on? I can't remember...), could be maintained, independent of the mode, by controlling the amount of energy dissipated per cycle), would TE013 yield a higher thrust than TE012? If so, why? Is it due to the larger asymmetry observed in TE013?
-
...
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
A dielectric can increase thrust.
-
...
Would it be possible that what is happening in the cavity is the index of free space may be being modified (by the idea you mentioned), changing the mass of light. As the light gains mass/slows in time, there is a back reaction on the dielectric of free space pushing the free space back, and as the light strikes the front of the cavity, the light provides more impulse than it did at the back of the cavity. Energy is then lost from the light to the vacuum.
This polarizeable vacuum possibly being some mix of matter/anti-matter. The anti-matter being negative mass but runs backwards in time (Similar to Richard Feynman's proposal Wiki Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory)) so appears to be positive mass but reverse in charge. This anti-matter having the effect of modifying time (This may be my own modification of the idea so far as I am aware) when it is polarized in the presence of normal matter leading to the effects of Lorentz contraction for fast moving objects or large gravitational bodies. Gravity being some gradient in the passage of time or possibly the vacuum being accelerated because of the gradient in time?
The idea coming from papers concerning light being measured to have more momentum inside water, having a higher index of refraction, and them having measured a back reaction of the light when entering the water. Is it possible with the vacuum too?
Or is this not really connected to what your talking about?
The Woodward effect is also mentioned in the wiki link at the bottom.
Closed timelike curves?
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.3
Quite different matters. I am just solving well-known theories of gravity coupled to e.m. fields. Yours seems a completely diverse approach.
-
What I'm asking is, with Q being equal (the Q factor, as defined as 2π times the ratio of the stored energy to the energy dissipated per oscillation cycle (is that the definition we settled on? I can't remember...), could be maintained, independent of the mode, by controlling the amount of energy dissipated per cycle), would TE013 yield a higher thrust than TE012? If so, why? Is it due to the larger asymmetry observed in TE013?
Each mode has different eddy current losses.
There is also the real issue of building a phase compliant coupler that factors in the near field effects of the dual reflected travelling waves crossing the coupler. Nice of all 3 are in phase.
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Please note Roger excites his Cryo frustum via a central choke opening in the side wall. That opening position can be made to be phase compliant between excited Rf and dual reflected travelling waves.
EmDrive Engineering 101.
-
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Alrighty then... What about other modes? TE014, TE015, TE016, etc.? Certainly TE013 can't be the only mode that allows a "1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge [to be] adjusted to be phase compliant".
-
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.
-
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Alrighty then... What about other modes? TE014, TE015, TE016, etc.? Certainly TE013 can't be the only mode that allows a "1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge [to be] adjusted to be phase compliant".
You may be right. I can't say as I design for TE013, as per Roger's recommendations.
-
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.
The interesting thing about Roger's solution is the engineering solutions it provides, allowing real devices to be modelled to the desired mode and resonant freq, built and for thrust to be measured. And ever more interesting is the predicted thrust is damn close to what is measured.
I gave Monomorphic the frustum design specs and he quickly verified they were correct and the edge 1/2 loop was a good solution.
While I can make no claim Roger's solution is correct, what I can say it is allows engineers to verify frustum designs and to build functional EmDrives.
As an engineer that is enough for me.
Eventually the theory will be verified but long before, many people will have working EmDrives and understand EmDrive Engineering 101.
-
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.
from the topic:
The one piece of evidence that gives me some optimism that there really might be something to this thing... by dangerousfoolishness in EmDrive
[–]StarDriveEW 25 points 14 hours ago
The skeptics will have plenty of firefighting to do when the December/January edition of the AIAA journal is released with our paper.
Thanks for the welcome. Before you ask I will not reveal details of the upcoming paper, but I have just today scanned this page (I'm new to reddit) and have made a few general comments. Did we speak with each other on Nasaspaceflight forums?
No I'm afraid not. If a copy leaks out then I'm positive it will not be from one of the group.
It is in a propulsion journal because it is an experimental propulsion device.
We have rectified the issues with using the dummy load.
The QVVP theory is not part of the paper.
I detect hostility towards me. Why?
Someone mentioned Harold's QVVP theory. There are currently interferometry tests being conducted at Eagleworks inside a resonant cavity. A paper is upcoming.
We did indeed address the damping issue.
Seems that Paul March has a bit more liberty to talk then before or is that just a perception of mine?
-
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.
Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.
-
From what I can make up from his reaction(s), the peer review article is definitely positively oriented for an EMeffect, and they took precautions to distance themselves from Dr. White's QVVP theory...
Personally, I consider it a very good choice to publish in an propulsion engineering journal, simply because there is no solid theory yet that supports these findings. There is really no point in publishing in a physics oriented journal if you don't have any clue about the "how" it works...
At the same time, as a front seat observer in this topic, I'd like to thank dr.Frasca, dr Rodal, Todd Desiato and many others i might have forgotten, for their continuous POSITIVE and inspiring theoretical contributions.
Visiting reddit more often lately, made me realize how much (uncomprehensive) hostility there is in the scientific world. I salute your tenacity and honest will to get to the bottom of this, regardless what is being said and regardless what the final conclusion on this topic will be...
-
From what I can make up from his reaction(s), the peer review article is definitely positively oriented for an EMeffect, and they took precautions to distance themselves from Dr. White's QVVP theory...
Personally, I consider it a very good choice to publish in an propulsion engineering journal, simply because there is no solid theory yet that supports these findings. There is really no point in publishing in a physics oriented journal if you don't have any clue about the "how" it works...
At the same time, as a front seat observer in this topic, I'd like to thank dr.Frasca, dr Rodal, Todd Desiato and many others i might have forgotten, for their continuous POSITIVE and inspiring theoretical contributions.
Visiting reddit more often lately, made me realize how much (uncomprehensive) hostility there is in the scientific world. I salute your tenacity and honest will to get to the bottom of this, regardless what is being said and regardless what the final conclusion on this topic will be...
You're a braver person than I as there seems to be a different atmosphere there than here.
-
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.
Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.
And this is what he said about which mode (TMxxx,TExxx) will produce thrust and which won't,
[–]StarDriveEW 5 points 19 hours ago
There is no magical 'correct' mode.
I interpret that as any mode will produce good amount of thrust, albeit some may produce more and some less.
-
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.
The interesting thing about Roger's solution is the engineering solutions it provides, allowing real devices to be modelled to the desired mode and resonant freq, built and for thrust to be measured. And ever more interesting is the predicted thrust is damn close to what is measured.
I gave Monomorphic the frustum design specs and he quickly verified they were correct and the edge 1/2 loop was a good solution.
While I can make no claim Roger's solution is correct, what I can say it is allows engineers to verify frustum designs and to build functional EmDrives.
As an engineer that is enough for me.
Eventually the theory will be verified but long before, many people will have working EmDrives and understand EmDrive Engineering 101.
Not refuting what your saying TT on the sidewall injections, although I'd like to offer some of my thoughts on it.
Side wall injection on particle accelerators are not truly a closed resonating cavity like the frustum. Small discrepancies in sidewall loop antenna couplings are not amplified by the actions of reflecting off endplates. Small deviations in beams can adjusted out downstream with other downstream injectors to make the beam travel a linear path. It was one of the issues that many were concerned about and the reason we designed the Streak Camera imaging system for the SCC in Texas a few years back.
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5230204_1436438764.938.jpg)
Using a single loop antenna on the sidewall with a high Q frustum cavity where small coupling discrepancies in loop build and injecting into that asymmetrical cavity will be amplified. This can lead to amplified parasitic effects that will effect your mode generation.
Maybe you can tune it out in your build, but consider when Arero and Dr. Rodal and I were running loop antennas placed in the side walls using meep. (Dr. Rodal took the data files to give a poynting direction for 10 slices from a full cycle). It became apparent that the sidewall loop has it's advantages and disadvantages. One being it's not a symmetrical injection in a amplifying high Q cavity.
This is why I had monomorphic do a offset modified loop, centered in the cavity, symmetrically within the frustum, positioned within the maxium B field location and the only coupling changes that should be needed is in the Z direction (plate to plate).
I'm attaching the gifs we did in meep and calculated poynting vectors showing what can happen.
My Best,
Shell
-
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.
Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.
And this is what he said about which mode (TMxxx,TExxx) will produce thrust and which won't,
[–]StarDriveEW 5 points 19 hours ago
There is no magical 'correct' mode.
I interpret that as any mode will produce good amount of thrust, albeit some may produce more and some less.
StarDriveEW is NOT Paul March.
-
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
He did provide a link up thread, but it seems to have disappeared.
-
How do you know?
I emailed him and asked.
Phil:
I just went to the below reddit.com URL and I have no clue who is writing it other than someone who has some inside information.
It will be interesting who it turns out to be and why they are writing now on reddit.com…
Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX
https://www.reddit.com/user/StarDriveEW
-
How do you know?
I emailed him and asked.
Phil:
I just went to the below reddit.com URL and I have no clue who is writing it other than someone who has some inside information.
It will be interesting who it turns out to be and why they are writing now on reddit.com…
Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX
https://www.reddit.com/user/StarDriveEW
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
-
...
Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
-
...
Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
-
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.
Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.
Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.
-
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.
Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So you're saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
-
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.
Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?
These are correct questions but, until I do not provide numbers, an answer to them there is not. I am working on this. The point here is that what happens inside the cavity is a local effect driven by the density of energy of the e.m. that, due to the coupling with gravity, could modify in some unexpected way the Newton constant. This could be a game changer together with the geometrical set-up and the characteristics of the cavity. You should consider that these are completely new scenarios for general relativity and theories alike.
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
Ok, don't laugh at me but has anyone looked at the work of Jefimenko who related EM to gravity and derives some new, possibly useful effects? Thanks.
-
...
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
A dielectric can increase thrust.
Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect. When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".
So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper. ;)
------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. At the time that Mariner 10 was launched (November 3, 1973, to fly by the planets Mercury and Venus) however, there was no hostility from the physics community to what NASA was doing, because the sling-shot maneuver and the effect of gravity was easy to explain.
The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
-
...
What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
A dielectric can increase thrust.
Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect. When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".
So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper. ;)
------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).
Indeed, you should take the previous formula for thrust and substitute the Newton constant obtained by the consistency equation. Both will depend on the dielectric constant of the medium inside the cavity. A rather involved relation indeed. :)
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate. But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
I find it quite evocative that, after Michelson and Morley's experiment, studying light in specific contexts could bring another potential scientific revolution on this century.
Because anyone can object to minuscule thrust experiments, blaming it all to noise and sloppy experiments, but our abilities to measure light's interference with itself are much better than our skills to measure thrust, and the potential causes of certain light behaviors are much more restricted than experimental error. There are simply no known ways to mimic light warping caused by space warping/gravity in a vacuum.
Basically, if there are certain repeatable anomalous interference patterns, then it's almost certainly a real effect, even if the thrust is minuscule.
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along.
-
Just as a quick aside;
I've expressed this before but the truth of it is that this forum is still an amazing teaching tool about *science*.
How questions get asked, how skepticism and pointed analysis lead to better designed experiments, how collaboration and building on ideas happens...
And in this particular instance, there are things happening that we don't yet understand.
New Science and New Frontiers in human understanding is a real possibility. Still a small one, but growing in confidence it seems.
That s**t is exciting, yo. :P
Keep on with the amazing work, there's a bunch of us out here just watching with amazement and wonder.
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along.
I have a feeling if there is a truth to this matter, and we get to the bottom of it, and many of the proposed concepts are grounded in reality, that many of them are subtly linked. I think GR mentioned gravitational disturbances escaping the cavity. To me that implies what ever space time is made up of escaping which makes one ask what is space time and may possibly be connected to other ideas. The energy density in the cavity modifying gravity in GR's proposal may possibly give insight along with the Polarizeable Vacuum theory where gravity modifies the vacuum density which may then be related to equations changing the mass of light providing more impulse of light in water and a back-reaction on the water. (parallel that to the index of vacuum changing). When we start changing the mass of light in a cavity bouncing back and forth, well that sounds really similar to the Woodward effect now. We also have White's proposal of the quantum vacuum rocket. Maybe it could even Parallel back to ideas of Richard Feynman. Its like puzzle pieces. When ideas start to match up that are grounded in reality from multiple perspectives we might begin to see the bigger picture of what's possible.
Edited3.
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate.(http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji3.png) But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.
Not to mention the manly art of fisticuffs - which were known to happen from time to time at early conferences on quantum mechanics or the denial thereof. :o
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
Can you elaborate a little more please, regarding equations (79) through (81) in your Brans-Dicke paper? I'm trying to understand the relationship between "G" and "Eta". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that as the mode "k" increases, and energy density increases, 1/G is increasing, or G is getting smaller. You simply say that the gravitational constant is "modified", but in what way? What are the relationships between say, the Maxwell field, E & B, and G? I saw that you said the change is proportional to U4, but G or 1/G?
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
In the PV Model, the coordinate velocity of light as observed by a distant observer in flat space-time, is modified by the gravitational field, using a refractive index, K.
c(K) = c/K
Therefore, since c4/G must remain invariant in the frame of the distant observer,
G(K) = G/K4
In the PV Model, K is directly proportional to the energy density, U. So as the energy density increases, G(K) decreases. i.e.,
1/G ~ U4
it seems like we're on the same page but I think more details in the paper are in order since the integral of equation 81, is rather complex.
Thank you.
-
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
-
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?
(Thanks google translate)
-
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?
(Thanks google translate)
This is the best post I have seen on this recently: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583043#msg1583043 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583043#msg1583043)
-
Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:
A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course ;) )
As a possible explaination for the trans-Planckian problem with Hawking Radiation?
A black hole is a closed cavity full of EM of sorts, and we observe radiative behaviors that are inconsistent with our predictions in that black body environment.
Does it even really matter that the EM Field is confined? Or is the requirement really that the EM Field in a region of space time be denser than surrounding environment. If the later then I would think there would be alot of astronomical entities one could investigate.
-
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. At the time that Mariner 10 was launched (November 3, 1973, to fly by the planets Mercury and Venus) however, there was no hostility from the physics community to what NASA was doing, because the sling-shot maneuver and the effect of gravity was easy to explain.
The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).
I think what you mean to say is that the linear momentum gained by the spaceship is ALMOST equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly#Possible_explanations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly#Possible_explanations)
Or, I suppose it might have just been a loose cable... If it was that pesky cable again, well gosh darn it, I'm definitely going to have to say something to the IT department this time.
-
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.
According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
If that is true then in a super conducting frustum where losses would be negligible. Once should be able to detect a reduction in the momentum transfer if it were possible to simply power up the SC Frustum and never recharge it.
-
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.
Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?
These are correct questions but, until I do not provide numbers, an answer to them there is not. I am working on this. The point here is that what happens inside the cavity is a local effect driven by the density of energy of the e.m. that, due to the coupling with gravity, could modify in some unexpected way the Newton constant. This could be a game changer together with the geometrical set-up and the characteristics of the cavity. You should consider that these are completely new scenarios for general relativity and theories alike.
I was operating under the impression that most if not all of the graviational effect would be isolated within the frustum. Is this not true? If so then unless people have been playing with asymmetrical frustums of the sort used to create EmDrives, then there is zero reason that anyone would have ever detected anything. In addition would the gravitational effect affect everything or just the frequencies of the EM Field reflecting inside the frustum.
-
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.
Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.
P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies.
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:
Thought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
-
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?
We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.
Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December. :o
Can you elaborate a little more please, regarding equations (79) through (81) in your Brans-Dicke paper? I'm trying to understand the relationship between "G" and "Eta". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that as the mode "k" increases, and energy density increases, 1/G is increasing, or G is getting smaller. You simply say that the gravitational constant is "modified", but in what way? What are the relationships between say, the Maxwell field, E & B, and G? I saw that you said the change is proportional to U4, but G or 1/G?
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
In the PV Model, the coordinate velocity of light as observed by a distant observer in flat space-time, is modified by the gravitational field, using a refractive index, K.
c(K) = c/K
Therefore, since c4/G must remain invariant in the frame of the distant observer,
G(K) = G/K4
In the PV Model, K is directly proportional to the energy density, U. So as the energy density increases, G(K) decreases. i.e.,
1/G ~ U4
it seems like we're on the same page but I think more details in the paper are in order since the integral of equation 81, is rather complex.
Thank you.
You should not just focus on these two equations. The missing relations are in the computations given in the preceding sections. Then, I will explain how to proceed to get numbers out.
The square of the stress-energy tensor is provided by eq.(59) and following. Please note that here I will apply some severe approximations by averaging on cos(θ0) and in time. The idea is to see if eq.(82) admits a solution in φ and, if affirmative, the order of magnitude one obtains for the gravitational constant. L0 is obtained by mediating on the cavity eq.(47) (it is an integral average). Here there is the dependence on G that will be taken as a varying field as expected on a Brans-Dicke model. The dependence on r is obtained by eq.(69). Eq.(66) fixes the value of the energy density and its dependence on k.
I expect from this a rough estimation to understand how things go, due to the heavy approximations I used. One can refine all the arguments by providing an exact solution to eq.(79). This could be afforded numerically but all I want to do is to obtain an order of magnitude.
I do not know what the PV model is and why you should expect c4/G being a constant. I am using a well-known model, widely used by researchers to test general relativity, that takes as gravitational coupling the inverse of a scalar field. This is mathematically and physically consistent as already shown at its inception in the '60s. So, if this is your proposal, you could be diverging from the Brans-Dicke model and general relativity as well.
-
...
Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.
P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies.
When I read this I think about all the educational books about general relativity: matter says to space-time how to curve and space-time says matter how to move. So, here the "body" is the e.m. field inside the cavity that, by changing space-time, gets back a reaction that moves it along with the cavity (the change in space-time applies both to the field and the cavity).
-
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.
-
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.
Yes, indeed. But if I would have sent such an idea to that journal (time crystals went out by Frank Wilczek, Nobel winner, on Physical Review Letters), it would have been straightforwardly rejected. It is important also the person who makes the proposal to get an idea through (authority principle).
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:
Thought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...
I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.
A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information.... ::)
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
-
And so it starts:
Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:
Thought you should know this. The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:
"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"
My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games. But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable. Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others. We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.
I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...
I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.
A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information.... ::)
You are right. It could have caused more trouble for this project. This happened, and paper is not even out for the public. To the defens of the news paper guys. Many of them know they do not fully understands what is going on and are open to hear from more educated people on this matter, thus correct their mistakes in the text. Of course this subject is very hard to explain to the public, so they need to make it "understandable".
EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together.
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-
....
EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together.
Most of the credits of defacing the imposter goes to TT, as he took the effort to contact Ir. Paul March.
I mentioned it here on this forum, because I found it strange that Ir. P. March decided to communicate on Reddit , rather then inhere , which is a much more discussion-friendly and professional environment.
Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...
It is quite shocking, tbh...
Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind.
It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
-
Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...
Pseudo-March's first mistake was calling him "Harold" - everyone calls him "Sonny". Even the real Paul March.
It is quite shocking, tbh... Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind. It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...
Never attribute to design or malice, what can be explained by stupidity or attention-seeking. There are some very self-delusional people in Academia, and no doubt big Institutions like NASA, who think that astro-turfing and sock-puppeting opinion is the *best* way to promote their pet theories. Plenty would love to shut down divergent and competing viewpoints to their own.
-
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
This result is consistent with the numbers obtained from HFSS simulation. I used single ring coupling antenna. --human translator
-
Maybe this is sort of like half an Alcubierre drive, space-time is being warped slightly (expanded or contracted) and the center of mass follows along?
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?
Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
Shell
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
-
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G S11 -8.1
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?
Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
Shell
这是我的仿真结果,与实测基本一致
-
这是我的仿真结果,与实测基本一致
You state that your calculated results are consistent with your measurement, but in your post you show completely different variables for what is calculated (electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1369726;image)
as opposed to what you measure (the input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency).
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1369729;image)
Where is the verification showing consistency of calculation vs. measurement, showing the same calculated variable for comparison with the measured variable? ???
A verification would consist of:
*showing calculated input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency [NOT SHOWN]
and comparing with
* measured input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency [DONE]
or
*showing calculated electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone [DONE]
and comparing with
* measured electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone [NOT SHOWN]
-
StrongGR -
From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.
If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.
Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?
R.
-
StrongGR -
From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.
If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.
Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?
R.
This appears only possible if the Newton constant changes inside the cavity. I proved this possible in the Brans-Dicke model. I am computing the order of magnitude of this effect to see if it could be acceptable as an explanation for the observed thrust at EW, in view of the December's paper. Anyhow, it is interesting to note that the effect exists and depends on the geometry of the cavity.
-
Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.
-
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c4/G?
This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant) κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.
The key to that finding is hereby described:
"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.
However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c2 must be constant.
Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."
The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.
-
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c4/G?
This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant) κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.
The key to that finding is hereby described:
"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.
However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c2 must be constant.
Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."
The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.
Dimensional Analysis & Consistency!
In the PV Model, we have the relationships between space-time and the refractive index, K, in the frame of a distant observer where K=1. Where, he is comparing to observations in gravitational fields, regions where K > 1.
x = x0 / K1/2
t = t0 * K1/2
m = m0 * K3/2
By dimensional analysis;
Force F = m*x/t2 = m0*x0/t02 is independent of K
If this were not true, then electromagnetic forces would be variables in a gravitational field. They are not. Atoms and their atomic transitions are scaled in space-time, but the forces between constituent particles are the same, regardless of the gravity well they are immersed in.
I give a very clear derivation of these details in my Quantum Gravity paper, on Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
The Planck Force = c4/G is no different. Since c(K) = c/K, G(K) must vary as G/K4.
The gravitational potential, Phi = 2*G*m/r*c2 is also independent of K, and in order to be so, G(K) = G/K4. It is consistency in the dimensional analysis of the theory. It is what allows gravity to act as a gauge transformation of the Maxwell field, and leaves the Lorentz forces unchanged.
Note: The gauge transformation of the EM field requires adding the gradient of a scalar function to the potentials. That scalar function has units of Volt-sec, or magnetic flux. If we add a gauge transformation to Maxwell's equations, the potentials change in a way that mimics gravity. There is more flux per quantum of charge, but the forces that we measure do not change. If we add magnetic flux in the path of an electron propagator, each quantum of flux adds a 2*pi phase-shift to the electron's wave function. This is increasing the effective path integral, making it appear to propagate slower, velocity drops as v/K. I've determined that K is directly proportional to energy density, and the energy density of the vacuum can be modeled as a density of random magnetic flux, used as the potential of a scalar field theory. I'm working on the details for the re-write of my paper.
I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.
Todd
-
....
I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.
Todd
Isn't that quite an overstatement ?
General Relativity is a very nonlinear theory, for which only very few solutions are known (*), even to this date.
What is the basis supporting the statement <<the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.>> ? ???
Actually does the PV model also result in the same exact solutions as General Relativity (see below in particular Reissner–Nordström, and Kerr metric for black holes(*))?, Black holes are certainly part of the observable universe...
---------
(*) The best-known exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissner–Nordström solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.
And the problem with perturbation solutions, particularly asymptotic perturbations goes without saying ... ;)
-
Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.
The effect has a non trivial dependence on geometry but appears to be scalable.
-
....
I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.
Todd
Isn't that quite an overstatement ?
General Relativity is a very nonlinear theory, for which only very few solutions are known (*), even to this date.
What is the basis supporting the statement <<the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.>> ? ???
Actually does the PV model also result in the same exact solutions as General Relativity (see below in particular Reissner–Nordström, and Kerr metric for black holes(*))?, Black holes are certainly part of the observable universe...
---------
(*) The best-known exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissner–Nordström solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.
And the problem with perturbation solutions, particularly asymptotic perturbations goes without saying ... ;)
In 1999 Puthoff showed the experimental validity to a weak field solution for the Perihelion of Mercury, Gravitational lensing and gravitational red shift. He also included EM in his Lagrangian solution.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity)
In 2003, I showed that event horizons do exist in the PV Model, even when using the approximate exponential solution of Puthoff's original work.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model)
In 2005 Puthoff also derived the Levi-Civita effect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226076564_Levi-Civita_Effect_in_the_polarizable_vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226076564_Levi-Civita_Effect_in_the_polarizable_vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity)
In 2005, 2006, Joe Depp and I then revised the model to derive precisely the Schwarzschild solution, Reissner-Nordstrom solution and the solution of an infinite wire.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265522894_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Reissner-Nordstrom_Solution (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265522894_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Reissner-Nordstrom_Solution)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265111294_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Schwarzschild_Solution (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265111294_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Schwarzschild_Solution)
In 2012, Puthoff published a more refined version of his Model in JBIS.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_Spacetime_Metric_Engineering (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_Spacetime_Metric_Engineering)
In 2012, Puthoff made available his Quantum ground states paper, which has just been published in a peer reviewed journal last month; Quant. Stud.: Math. Found. 3 (1), 5-10 (2016).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222942820_Quantum_Ground_States_as_Equilibrium_Particle-Vacuum_Interaction_States (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222942820_Quantum_Ground_States_as_Equilibrium_Particle-Vacuum_Interaction_States)
I used all of the above to compile my warp drive paper where I reproduced Alcubierre's warp drive and showed precisely how GR and PV are two interpretations of the same thing. The Kerr metric and the warp drive are both examples of frame dragging.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275336571_The_Electromagnetic_Quantum_Vacuum_Warp_Drive_Slides (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275336571_The_Electromagnetic_Quantum_Vacuum_Warp_Drive_Slides)
Somewhere in the past 15 years, I did derive the Kerr metric too, but I never wrote it into a paper. It's stashed in one of my many notebooks, in a box somewhere. It was difficult but it still fit within the parameters of the model.
In 2016, I've shown how it corresponds to radiative damping of the harmonic oscillator, and I'm working on a re-write that will show how to quantize the model properly. Showing what is an inertial frame in terms of the EM Quantum Vacuum, ZPF and how the field is out of symmetry when there is acceleration, that results in increased radiation reaction damping and cooling. It's deep, but enjoyable!
In my view, all of the "experimental" evidence there is, is supported or reproduced to within the margin of error. It's just that GR predicts many things that have not been observed. If you count those, then the two theories are not equivalent, but I don't count what hasn't been observed (yet) when I make such statements. It complies with all the known observable data I am aware of. :)
For engineering purposes, a quantum field theory is much preferred over the geometrical approach.
Todd
-
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1 -google translator
-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
This result is consistent with the numbers obtained from HFSS simulation. I used single ring coupling antenna. --human translator
S-parameters, by definition, require a 50 ohm system. If you are launching an S-parameter test set into an closed cavity, open cavity, free space or any impedance outside the calibrated impedance capability of the test set, the returned S-parameters will be non-sensical.
-
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.
Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.
Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.
I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.
Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.
Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.
I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.
-
Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.
I will hope it is for opportunity. However, you have certainly created a question that many would like explained.
-
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.
Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.
Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.
I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.
It is taxpayer funded research, that isn't classified or export controlled (otherwise it couldn't be published to begin with). The results have to be freely available in the end (A few extra months or even a year delay from the publication date would still be legal most likely, so we can be glad we don't need to wait more).
-
Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.
I will hope it is for opportunity. However, you have certainly created a question that many would like explained.
Wish him all the best.
-
It is taxpayer funded research, that isn't classified or export controlled (otherwise it couldn't be published to begin with). The results have to be freely available in the end (A few extra months or even a year delay from the publication date would still be legal most likely, so we can be glad we don't need to wait more).
It's also ten year behind the state of the art according to Shawyer. Wish we could see what's really going on...
-
Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.
I will hope it is for opportunity. However, you have certainly created a question that many would like explained.
Wish him all the best.
Paul told me he was retiring and taking his wife on a LONG Holiday.
I'm sure we all wish Paul & his wife all the best in retirement.
-
Is there any obvious candidates at EW to take over his work?
-
"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.
However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c2 must be constant.
Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."
Does any of the below pertain?
Gravitational constant may be changing on a 5.9 year cycle:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html
"As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements."
Speed of light may vary too:
cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
"We then summarize the main VSL mechanisms proposed so far: hard breaking of Lorentz invariance; bimetric theories (where the speeds of gravity and light are not the same); locally Lorentz invariant VSL theories; theories exhibiting a color dependent speed of light; varying c induced by extra dimensions (e.g. in the brane-world scenario); and field theories where VSL results from vacuum polarization or CPT violation."
Then there's bimetric gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity
-
Despite the close correlation between LOD and G, the scientists note that the maximum percentage variation of the LOD is on the order of 10-9, which is large enough to change G by only 10-5 of the amplitude—not enough to explain the full 10-4 percentage variation in G. Since this means that the LOD variations cannot cause the G variations, the researchers surmise that both variations are caused by changing motions in the Earth's core, or perhaps some other geophysical process.
As a translation here, there is no reasonable way that they are saying that a geophysical process somehow changes the fundamental constant G throughout the universe. Instead this may mean that there is some error source such as changes of rotations in the earth's core that ends up affecting both length of day and measurements of G. For example, since measurements of G often use torsion pendulums, an effect altering LOD may also affect the measurements of G by a means related to the Foucault pendulum. (It would probably be something even more subtle though)
This also explains why the quantum measurement doesn't fit the pattern; it could be immune to this error. The oscillations are due to an error source and not a true changing of G.
Also relevant context from that paper for the variable speed of light:
The evidence is slim -- redshift dependence in alpha, ultra high energy cosmic rays, and (to a much lesser extent) the acceleration of the universe and the WMAP data. The constraints (e.g. those arising from nucleosynthesis or geological bounds) are tight, but not impossible.
I am glad some scientists are looking at these theories, because I sometimes wonder if scientists don't revisit their assumptions often enough. But this paper also acknowledges one of the main reasons why they don't. There is not much margin in the experimental errors for these theories to squeeze in.
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
-
I am glad some scientists are looking at these theories, because I sometimes wonder if scientists don't revisit their assumptions often enough. But this paper also acknowledges one of the main reasons why they don't. There is not much margin in the experimental errors for these theories to squeeze in.
Indeed! There was a great editorial on this in The Economist a few weeks ago:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI, founded by Gerard K. O'Neill) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (California State University, Fullerton), Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden), Paul March (NASA), Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), among several others. I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM. I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (Fullerton), Prof. Tajmar (TU Dresden) and Paul March, among several others. I am giving a presentation on Tuesday (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF). I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
Video and proceedings will be made public on the ssi.org site as soon as possible, but we don't have a schedule for those tasks to be completed at the moment.
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (California State University, Fullerton), Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden) and Paul March (NASA), among several others. I am giving a presentation on Tuesday (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF). I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
More info attached.
-
Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.
The effect has a non-trivial dependence on geometry but appears to be scalable.
Forgive these questions if they are trivial; my math skills don't get anywhere near what's required to truly understand your paper.
1) Does your interpretation of the B-D theory then give any clues as to the optimal distribution of radiation within the frustum/cavity from a "thrust*" perspective? That is, say, an even distribution vs. a gradient?
2) Someone mentioned an analog in the natural world (using masers as an example). Scientific American had an article about how a supervoid could cause a cold spot in the CMBR... that would be a gradient of sorts.
{Link to graphic:http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v315/n2/images/scientificamerican0816-28-I4.jpg (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v315/n2/images/scientificamerican0816-28-I4.jpg)}
If the entire universe were a frustum and the "source" of the CMBR were an analog for the small end of the frustum with (any particular point today) being the large end of the frustum, you'd get a "thrust*" towards the "small end..." would that look like "dark energy?"
* Term used loosely to describe a resultant acceleration
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI, founded by Gerard K. O'Neill) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (California State University, Fullerton), Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden), Paul March (NASA), Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), among several others. I am giving a presentation on Tuesday (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive). I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
I am attending the three day workshop.
My work has progressed to the point that I welcome clearer understanding the different theories and approaches to help refine and maybe better understand what of the results I have seen in the lab.
SSI is to be applauded in this approach in sponsoring this veritable mind-meld of Physicists, PhDs, Educators, Engineers and even the highly interested who have a common mindset and goal.
Let us dream.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM25-lz1Yms
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
This is my 4th test bed. I'm currently removing all metals including the aluminum frame, it will be made of wood. The lab tabletop is being replaced with a wooden top. http://imgur.com/a/LSwQN
I'll still have the torsion wire and small tension screw for the wire and a couple brass screws.
The new frustum is now a TE013 build.
Will have the control electronics on the top but critical areas are now sealed with Mu-metal sheets.
For now I'm staying with the magnetron.
The magnetron's power is driven by a varaible HV power supply and the heater power is current controlled, switchable on/off.
I keep the magnetron cooled and stable by a wrapped water cooling copper line into a forced air heat exchange radiator.
The magnetron drives into a tunable resonate cavity locking to 2.445GHz which drives an antenna probe to coax to a tunable frustum.
I was hoping to have this refined build done and tested before the upcoming workshop, but it just couldn't be done in time.
Shell
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Phil,
Sort of regret not putting together a public presentation for my 18.4 mN test result and sending it to these folks. Its probably best as I did not resolve stability/performance/heating issues with the magnetron(s). So, while the maggy was at top performance, 18.4 was there; but it did not last. I'd rather not present something that was not repeatable...a big no-no in my previous life presenting to engineers and board of director types.
I only check in about once a month, so in October, I hope to be able to return to the fun stuff by completing the solid state build...hopefully.
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (California State University, Fullerton), Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden) and Paul March (NASA), among several others. I am giving a presentation on Tuesday (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF). I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
More info attached.
I wish I had known about this. My recent work and paper would've been well suited for this. :'(
-
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion.
There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in :)
May I ask you what will be the name of the conference and when it will take place? Will it be streamed on internet? I am sure many would like to watch and hear it. Including me.
It is the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, 20-22 September 2016, organized by the Space Studies Institute (SSI) (http://ssi.org/ ) under Gary C Hudson, President. There will be presentations by Prof. J. Woodward, Prof. H. Fearn (California State University, Fullerton), Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden) and Paul March (NASA), among several others. I am giving a presentation on Tuesday (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF). I understand that SeeShells is attending :)
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
More info attached.
I wish I had known about this. My recent work and paper would've been well suited for this. :'(
Its appears to be a close knit group, mainly around the Woodwards Mach Effect thruster from what I gathered a few months ago. There was no formal call for papers and think it was by invitation only. Had a couple of early conversations with someone whom suggested I bring a working demo of my Gen II, but that was before I started any testing and had no idea if it performed. Timing was bad, in addition...
-
...
Its appears to be a close knit group, mainly around the Woodwards Mach Effect thruster from what I gathered a few months ago. There was no formal call for papers and think it was by invitation only. Had a couple of early conversations with someone whom suggested I bring a working demo of my Gen II, but that was before I started any testing and had no idea if it performed. Timing was bad, in addition...
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
It is a small workshop, by design, and as such attendance was by invitation.
NSF readers can form their own judgement, for example, by reading the Mission Statement and Conference Overview previously posted by TheTraveller here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1584913#msg1584913 , and based on the reputation of the Space Studies Institute, since it was founded by the late Princeton University Professor Gerard K. O'Neill; later presided by Prof. Freeman Dyson (now in the Board of Trustees); and presently presided by Gary C Hudson.
Fundamental research in physics funded by the NSF tends to focus on quantum gravity and
string theory. NASA funded a small breakthrough propulsion program in the 1990s, but it was
not sustained. Even if money was available, it is not clear how and where funds should be
invested.
The typical conference format is ill-suited to this venture. Many conferences that accept
breakthrough propulsion papers allow any person to pay a fee and present any dubious technical
claim with little peer review or engagement with subject matter experts.
Therefore, we want to attempt to assemble a handful of potentially viable concepts for a
propulsion breakthrough, and give each of them a rigorous, real-time, peer-review on the twin
bases of theory and experiment. If someone has something with potential, they should relish a
chance to explain it to others. If their scheme is ultimately not viable, they can be freed to join
work in a more promising area
(Bold added for emphasis)
_____________
(*) https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en
(**) http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
(***) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Woodward
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Normally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max which normally exist out of phase with each other. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV. In one mode I remember there being two maybe it was 3 regions there B fields and E fields exist near each other so the idea is normally if there was a force they would oppose each other but because of the difference in field strengths one force is greater than the other. striked through because it seemed incorrect and possibly irrelevant
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that.
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Normally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV.
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that.
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS ::) for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
I was wondering Shell are you using two antennas to inject radiation where one builds up the energy and the other antenna is in a magnetic field region? I was considering that might cause some jerk reaction possibly. Also here is a link to another thread related to this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41087.msg1585189#msg1585189 where I was wondering if it might be possible that with superimposed electric/magnetic fields (a positive charged mass moving left and a negative charged mass moving right in an electric field while immersed in a B field field coming out of the screen would cause both charges to experience a force up I believe. If the electric and B field reverse at the same frequency and exist at the same time, and the quantum vacuum were made up of such charges then I was wondering if they could both get a push in the same direction and then disappear again.
Normally in a cavity I don't think the electric and magnetic fields tend to exist at the same time in the same space with standing waves in a cavity. Except, maybe in a region between the magnetic field max and electric field max. Possibly the taper of the cavity in a frustum could imbalance the magnitude of superimposed E/B fields such that if they did exist at the same time, that one side would have greater fields and the result would be an uneven push on the QV.
I asked about two antennas because if one antenna resided in a B field max, then turning it on would induce an electric field inside the B field of the cavity. I was wondering if the image you had of the traveling modes in a cavity could have something to do with that.
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS ::) for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one ;) Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable :)
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS ::) for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/05/22/2E270B2200000578-3305990-image-a-31_1446761752890.jpg)
Not that much different then what EagleWorks used but through the device will be a optical quality quartz rod and another identical quartz rod outside the cavity.
This will allow an comparison in travel times between the two beams. The quartz rod isolates the beam from any atmospheric effects that the EM fields could induce in the cavity.
Help?
Shell
-
Let us dream.
Indeed.
Then, Let us BUILD.
Oh, I am TT, I am.
I was using dual waveguides and then used dual antennas, both provided limited success. Sadly my home brew engineering had it limits. I regrouped and I'm down to a single antenna now that will lock a mode TE013. monomorphic did some great work simulating a modified loop design for me, he is very good.
By creating a stabilized TE012 or TE013 mode within the cavity, field strengths and locations of the E and B fields are quite predictable. With a stabilized high Q mode other external fields can be used to induce effects pointing to actions like MET (Mach Effect Thruster with PZT) or disruptions within the QV pertaining to Dr. Whites virtual particles with diaeletric. (You can even go from a high Q TE mode and flip the cavity into a particle accelerating TM010 mode very quickly with an externally applied B field changing boundary conditions in the cavity. Or you can combine subsets of different theories to ascertain which theories hold up like Todds' and several others. Also with the Quartz rod through the cavity I can test the frustum for any spacetime warpage.
If you're asking if I support one theory or another right now, honestly I can't say. I'll be listening and learning and picking brains at this Advanced Propulsion workshop.
On another note. I've been told that my thruster should be called a KSDrive, KS ::) for Kitchen Sink.
My very best,
Shell
i'm sorry for my ignorance, but how it will work this process of detection warpage spacetime with quartz rod ?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/05/22/2E270B2200000578-3305990-image-a-31_1446761752890.jpg)
Not that much different then what EagleWorks used but through the device will be a optical quality quartz rod and another identical quartz rod outside the cavity.
This will allow an comparison in travel times between the two beams. The quartz rod isolates the beam from any atmospheric effects that the EM fields could induce in the cavity.
Help?
Shell
Thank very much ! :) :)
I thought it was another different method of interferometry.
Success and good work! :)
-
...
Its appears to be a close knit group, mainly around the Woodwards Mach Effect thruster from what I gathered a few months ago. There was no formal call for papers and think it was by invitation only. Had a couple of early conversations with someone whom suggested I bring a working demo of my Gen II, but that was before I started any testing and had no idea if it performed. Timing was bad, in addition...
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
It is a small workshop, by design, and as such attendance was by invitation.
NSF readers can form their own judgement, for example, by reading the Mission Statement and Conference Overview previously posted by TheTraveller here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1584913#msg1584913 , and based on the reputation of the Space Studies Institute, since it was founded by the late Princeton University Professor Gerard K. O'Neill; later presided by Prof. Freeman Dyson (now in the Board of Trustees); and presently presided by Gary C Hudson.
Fundamental research in physics funded by the NSF tends to focus on quantum gravity and
string theory. NASA funded a small breakthrough propulsion program in the 1990s, but it was
not sustained. Even if money was available, it is not clear how and where funds should be
invested.
The typical conference format is ill-suited to this venture. Many conferences that accept
breakthrough propulsion papers allow any person to pay a fee and present any dubious technical
claim with little peer review or engagement with subject matter experts.
Therefore, we want to attempt to assemble a handful of potentially viable concepts for a
propulsion breakthrough, and give each of them a rigorous, real-time, peer-review on the twin
bases of theory and experiment. If someone has something with potential, they should relish a
chance to explain it to others. If their scheme is ultimately not viable, they can be freed to join
work in a more promising area
(Bold added for emphasis)
_____________
(*) https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en
(**) http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
(***) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Woodward
This I know. A gentleman invited me to participate and have an offsite working demo, but I could not commit at that time as Gen II testing had not yet started. The origins of this event initially focused on the Mach Effect from what he told me.
I hope EmDrive gets a place at the table with those who have actually designed, built and tested devices. Propulsion gatherings in the past have been rife with theories and blue sky plans but very little hardware. I suspect this may change in the future...hardware expos are being kicked around as I type, perhaps as early as December.
-
Can you say about what thrust you expect to see? Thanks.
No sir I can't. I'm currently chasing down a high impulse cyclic pulse jerk action and until that happens I simply can't say. I will say there is "something", so far it's unknown what excact conditions of timings cause it although I will find it.
Shell
Is there a steady-state signal to be seen?
Great question. Yes there is. It's not what I've been interested in for several months.
Shell
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable :)
That's the $64 thousand dollar question. ;D
Shell
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one ;) Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several presentations were scheduled (*) to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF) and Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device.
Also Todd Desiato ("WarpTech") (also well known to readers of of the EM Drive at NSF) has confirmed -today :) - that he is attending as well.
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
_______________
(*) We look forward to the actual workshop for the final list of presentations
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one ;) Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several (apparently the majority, but I will confirm after the workshop) presentations are scheduled to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF), Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device, etc.
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
-
...
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
-
...
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss an exact solution, derivation from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber, and impedance spectroscopy.
I'll look forward to hearing you both. In reading about Hoyle-Narlikar, the data never seemed to quite fit, and you have new data. Doggies... I'm jazzed. 8) Good luck in your presentation!
Best,
Shell
-
...
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
I hadn't heard of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitation before, so I Wikipedia'd myself up to speed.
On the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of Gravitation (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/286/1406/313)
It is shown that the direct-particle action-principle from which Hoyle & Narlikar derive their new theory of gravitation not only yields the Einstein field-equations in the 'smooth-fluid' approximation, but also implies that the 'm'-field be given by the sum of half the retarded field and half the advanced field calculated from the world-lines of the particles. This is in effect a boundary condition for the Einstein equations, and it appears that it is incompatible with an expanding universe since the advanced field would be infinite. A possible way of overcoming this difficulty would be to allow the existence of negative mass.
This should be interesting! :D
-
So even a paper that old is still behind a paywall.
-
...
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
I hadn't heard of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitation before, so I Wikipedia'd myself up to speed.
On the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of Gravitation (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/286/1406/313)
It is shown that the direct-particle action-principle from which Hoyle & Narlikar derive their new theory of gravitation not only yields the Einstein field-equations in the 'smooth-fluid' approximation, but also implies that the 'm'-field be given by the sum of half the retarded field and half the advanced field calculated from the world-lines of the particles. This is in effect a boundary condition for the Einstein equations, and it appears that it is incompatible with an expanding universe since the advanced field would be infinite. A possible way of overcoming this difficulty would be to allow the existence of negative mass.
This should be interesting! :D
I will focus my presentation for space propulsion on an exact solution assuming a) solid material velocities much smaller than the speed of light and b) very small inertial mass fluctuations, and its comparison with experiments.
But addressing your question regarding the paper from Hawking in 1965, the Einstein-de Sitter model (used by Hawking) does not allow for an accelerating expansion. Heidi Fearn has a possible answer to that issue in this paper (pages 9 to 13):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269721882_Mach's_Principle_Action_at_a_Distance_and_Cosmology
EDIT: Basically, the expansion of the universe ( Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf ) allows one to define a Rindler cutoff for the advanced waves and so their integral, does not diverge. Of course Hawking back in 1965 did not know the universe was accelerating.... So Hawking was right at the time.
There are other possible answers (besides Hawking's answer regarding negative mass, and H. Fearn's answer), for example an n-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory like this one
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278121181_N-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_universe_in_Hoyle-Narlikar_C-field_cosmology
In any case the present accelerating expansion phase of the universe, including the dark energy hypotheis, is still not satisfactorily explained to the complete satisfaction of the majority of physicists ;)
-
So even a paper that old is still behind a paywall.
This one, much more recent (2008) is not behind a paywall, freely available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.2965.pdf
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidgeii, R.G. Vishwakarmaiii
We concede that with the assumptions of dark energy, non-baryonic dark
matter, inflation etc. an overall self consistent picture has been provided
within the framework of the standard model. One demonstration of this
convergence to self consistency is seen from a comparison of a review of the
values of cosmological parameters of the standard model by Bagla, et al.
(1996), with the present values. Except for the evidence from high redshift
supernovae, in favour of an accelerating universe which came 2-3 years later
than the above review, there is an overall consistency of the picture within
the last decade or so, including a firmer belief in the flat (Ω = 1) model with
narrower error bars.
Nevertheless we also like to emphasize that the inputs required in fundamental
physics through these assumptions have so far no experimental checks
from laboratory physics. Moreover an epoch dependent scenario providing
self-consistency checks, e.g. CMB anisotropies, cluster baryon fraction as
a function of redshift does not meet the criterion of ‘repeatability of scientific
experiment’. We contrast this situation with that in stellar evolution
where stars of different masses constitute repeated experimental checks on
the theoretical stellar models thus improving their credibility.
Given the speculative nature of our understanding of the universe, a
sceptic of the standard model is justified in exploring an alternative avenue
wherein the observed features of the universe are explained with fewer speculative
assumptions. We review here the progress of such an alternative
model.
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
-
........
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
.......
Damn... :(
Too bad it isn't in the EU, else i would jump in the car/train and drive to where ever I'd need to be.
But , regretfully, Colorado USA, that's just a bit too far...
I can only hope that the video's will soften the sentiment of a missed opportunity...
I'm sure that by now, the press will get notice of the event and scramble to be present also?
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, except for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
-
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable :)
That's the $64 thousand dollar question. ;D
Shell
Does if seem to you that both the steady state signal and the HICPJA are different manifestations of the same phenomenon? Or is it possibe that there's more than one mechanism at work here?
I mean, both warp and impulse from the same drive? Seems almost to good to be true...
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Shawyer might be onto something for all anyone knows but because he can't give a cohesive theory on how it works plus the long gap on the results people are bound to doubt what he says. It's not because they are haters to use the modern parlance but because they need persuading.
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one ;) Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several presentations were scheduled (*) to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF) and Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device.
Also Todd Desiato ("WarpTech") (also well known to readers of of the EM Drive at NSF) has confirmed -today :) - that he is attending as well.
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
_______________
(*) We look forward to the actual workshop for the final list of presentations
quick toughts-
1) sounds awesome
2) looks like a spin-off of this forum somehow! :)
3) good luck!
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.
No surprise he isn't on that panel.
---
Besides, honestly, i think this behaviour is rather stupid.
IF EM drive works for real, but someone else develops the theory or shares the conclusive results first, hw won't get any merit for it: it will be someone else's name that goes through history (more precisely, the name of the person who does the first public & accepted demostrations, along with the names of those publishing the precise theoretical explanation of what's happening in the drive).
IF EM drive doesn't work, everybody will call him a scammer even if that wasn't his purpose to begin with.
From any point of view, it's a very suboptimal line of action. With his behaviour, Shawyer is locking himself out of the benefits its invention may produce either way.
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
In 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
James Randi
Martin Gardner
Carl Sagan
Paul Kurtz
Ray Hyman
Philip J. Klass
Isaac Asimov
Bertrand Russell
Harry Houdini
Albert Einstein
Richard Feynman
Joe Nickell
Karl Popper
H.L. Mencken
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Jay Gould
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Richard_Feynman_Nobel.jpg)(http://www.crystalinks.com/einsteinwiki.jpg)(http://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/authors/1341965730p5/16667.jpg)
-
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Have earlier updated my build progress and never said I would not demo a rotating EmDrive. Building 2 spherical end plate, very high Q frustums is not as easy as I or the fabricators expected.
Am reliably informed another EmDrive builder has achieved a rotating EmDrive. So one way or the other or both there will be at least 3 videos of EmDrives happily rotating on their test rigs.
Also have been informed that at least 3 other EmDrive builders are working to duplicate the spherical end plate EmDrive design I shared.
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
Depends on what you know.
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
Depends on what you know.
depends on what has been shared with the public by him. So far, nothing that inficiates either claim. If he shared bits of either thing with someone else, but that person cannot share it with the public, I am afraid it only implies that we have to have FAITH in that other person instead of him.
Science doesn't work on faith.
-
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable :)
That's the $64 thousand dollar question. ;D
Shell
Does if seem to you that both the steady state signal and the HICPJA are different manifestations of the same phenomenon? Or is it possibe that there's more than one mechanism at work here?
I mean, both warp and impulse from the same drive? Seems almost to good to be true...
I don't know if they are but it deserves to be tested.
Shell
-
Science doesn't work on faith.
You have read the 2 very detailed engineering reports and 2 independent reviews on www.emdrive.com ?
Next consider Boeing became a SPR licensee in 2007 with full IP transfer. Then after 2 years to examine and 1st hand test both the Experimental EmDrive using static thrust test rigs and the Demonstrator EmDrive using both static and rotary test thrust rigs, SPR was awarded in 2009 a contract to supply Boeing with a space rated Flight Thruster, which was delivered and paid for in 2010.
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
BTW Roger tells me Boeing is still a SPR licensee and regularly receives IP updates.
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite. :-\
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
Is the next step - the next leap forward - waiting for the publication of the peer-reviewed paper in December?
Is it waiting on some grand unveil from Boeing?
If it's so loaded with untapped potential, then I would assume some deep pocket speculator like Bezos would dump a few million in pocket change in the off chance it works. Has this happened?
There's a wise old statement that has one, uh, taking care of business or getting off the pot already.
When is EM getting off the pot? What will it take??
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite. :-\
My reasons...
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it. This project deserves it, no it demands it.
Dr. Rodal has done something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
-
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it. This project deserves it, no it demands it.
Dr. Rodal has done something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. Honestly, I should be a lot more fair. You and Dave have both shown your apparatuses, as has Dr. Tajmir, and both Dave and Tajmir (among a few others) have shown their data and seem to replicate some of Eagleworks' data in whole or in part, though ambiguities remain - and those ambiguities are the bane of our collective existence. I have faith that you're doing your best to be honest and truthful with your experiments and data; you wouldn't be attending that propulsion conference to discuss your results otherwise!
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Shawyer might be onto something for all anyone knows but because he can't give a cohesive theory on how it works plus the long gap on the results people are bound to doubt what he says. It's not because they are haters to use the modern parlance but because they need persuading.
The wheel was used successfully for many centuries before the development of Newton's Laws. Engineering success does not require a viable theory. That being said, I want to see a working theory very badly. Refining these device testbeds will hopefully lead us to a sensor capable of identifying which of the theories best fits the data.
A viable theory will greatly improve the pace of innovation, as it guides the direction of search toward concepts that are more likely to be successful, and allows computer simulations to largely replace "cut, try, and repeat" physical prototypes.
On a philosophical note (forgive me if this is obvious), each of our physical laws is only a representation, a model, of reality, not reality itself. We get into trouble as scientists when we get lured into a false sense of security (or parochialism) that we have "arrived". General Relativity is a better model than Newton's Laws. One of the new theories will be better than General Relativity. Each refinement allows us to solve problems the previous model couldn't. It is likely that at each stage of refinement, we will find examples that can't be readily explained by the latest, best model. Rinse, lather, repeat. 😃
-
The future is unpredictable. But we know from the past that the birth of the Space Age may be said to have begun when engineers and applied scientists in the 1920's and 1930's formed Rocket Societies: groups of people who associated for a common purpose: the conquest of Space.
Generally, the Rocket Societies hoped that technical solutions would fall into place. The early Rocket Society members were the most optimistic, perhaps you could call them naive, men and women.
The Germans, American and Russian Rocket Society groups developed the first static test stands for testing rocket engine performance. They developed cooling methods for long duration rocket engines: the regenerative method in which the liquid fuel is circulated around the rocket engine prior to entering the combustion chamber. The members of the Rocket Societies gained experience in handling liquid oxygen, how to utilize superlight-superstrength materials for rocket combustion engines, and the development of pumps.
The Soviet Gas Dynamic Lab produced and tested an electric rocket motor in 1929 (!), a rocket which had such small thrust, that could only be used for space applications (not for military purposes). Goddard test ion propulsion with experiments in 1916-1917.
See:
Prelude to the Space Age: The Rocket Societies, 1924-1940
It is in the public domain here:
https://archive.org/stream/preludetospaceag00wint#page/n15/mode/2up
An article in the New York Times on January 13, 1920 stated:
That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3017/5808700948_e742b0acdc.jpg)
Later, the NYT retracted this: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space
To go from the rocket societies of the 1920's to the reality of the Space Age in the 1960's it took 40 years of some of the fastest and most revolutionary development witnessed by humanity, a great deal of it accelerated by defensive needs due to WWII and the Cold War.
When will the dreams of space breathrough propulsion become reality? Impossible to predict. But the inability to predict the future did not deter groups of optimistic men and women back in the 1920's and the dream to make it happen will persist, because that is the nature of mankind: to look into and explore the unknown.
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite. :-\
Boeing made that statement shortly after Prof Yang stated Roger had assisted her. It is my understanding they were a bit upset with Roger. I believe what was stated was “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says.
Have never read Boeing stating the Flight Thruster did not work.
BTW the dates and events I quoted are public knowledge.
-
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it. This project deserves it, no it demands it.
Dr. Rodal has done something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. Honestly, I should be a lot more fair. You and Dave have both shown your apparatuses, as has Dr. Tajmir, and both Dave and Tajmir (among a few others) have shown their data and seem to replicate some of Eagleworks' data in whole or in part, though ambiguities remain - and those ambiguities are the bane of our collective existence. I have faith that you're doing your best to be honest and truthful with your experiments and data; you wouldn't be attending that propulsion conference to discuss your results otherwise!
It's ok, I very much appreciate your honesty.
I'm looking forward to this advanced propulsion workshop next week. Since I'm "poking a stick" at almost every theory out there it will be good to have all the players in one room and be able to fine tune my tests after all is said and done.
My Best,
Shell
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
...
The next step is waiting for more data, either the EW paper in December, or a much promised rotary demo.
While it may seem pessimistic to some here, I doubt the EW paper will be the conclusive data people hope for, it will likely continue the trend of thrust being too close to the level of the noise or potential error sources to be definitive. I also for a variety of reasons sincerely doubt that the rotary demo will come to fruition.
One of the problems with ideas like this is that they should be relatively simple to show if true, but very difficult to completely disprove. Disproving it would require basically a setup with all error sources accounted for sensitive enough to measure the thrust from thermal radiation, while being able to show that it was in resonance with a reasonable Q. Under these circumstances, the longer this goes with the existing pattern the more likely this is all just a wild goose chase.
I am still watching, since I wish that this would work, but that is more consideration than most scientists would give at this point, and that is quite reasonable of them. Despite the huge promise of such a technology, the lack of any significant investments in it is an indication of the very, very tiny chance that it works when you consider all of the prior knowledge from all of the science done before this.
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
...
The next step is waiting for more data, either the EW paper in December, or a much promised rotary demo.
While it may seem pessimistic to some here, I doubt the EW paper will be the conclusive data people hope for, it will likely continue the trend of thrust being too close to the level of the noise or potential error sources to be definitive. I also for a variety of reasons sincerely doubt that the rotary demo will come to fruition.
One of the problems with ideas like this is that they should be relatively simple to show if true, but very difficult to completely disprove. Disproving it would require basically a setup with all error sources accounted for sensitive enough to measure the thrust from thermal radiation, while being able to show that it was in resonance with a reasonable Q. Under these circumstances, the longer this goes with the existing pattern the more likely this is all just a wild goose chase.
I am still watching, since I wish that this would work, but that is more consideration than most scientists would give at this point, and that is quite reasonable of them. Despite the huge promise of such a technology, the lack of any significant investments in it is an indication of the very, very tiny chance that it works when you consider all of the prior knowledge from all of the science done before this.
And now you're going to far in the other direction, in spite of what you said in your first paragraph.
Is it impossible for people to not immediately slide to one side or the other in this business.
Yes I am sceptic to a degree but it seems like a lot of people either leap straight on the EM drive bandwagon or it will never work bandwagon without actually waiting for any actual data.
By the way if I see yet another person predicting what the EW paper is going to say or not say....!!!
-
I'm sure someone has said this before but to reiterate, most people including myself are frustrated with TT because its a constant 'trust me' and 'I have all the answers but I can't share them which for any theoretical prospect typically does more harm than good at this stage.
I won't try to restrict you, TT, but it might be best for everyone's sanity if doubters are ignored or otherwise addressed with facts that can be shared and have been verified (no the rotary demos and previously published papers are not facts, no matter how many times they get posted over and over again). I want to believe there is something to this but if i see that @!&$ slide or graph one more time as verified proof I will have an aneurysm. These facts may need to wait for peer reviewed papers to be released. Its fine for doubters to exist, they don't impact whether or not the effect exists. Shells seems to have the right approach in not wanting to talk about it much at all until its completed.
And science definitely takes time, it sounds like SeeShells has torn down and is rebuilding her entire rig to make sure the data she does have is legitimate. (And while I give that it is a private company, we havent seen near anything like this from Shawyer, just repeated statements to trust) which is the best thing to do.
Right now all we can have faith in is Shells' and other (non-Shawyer since he cant share anything) experimenters integrity, which so far we have no reason to doubt.
-
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
In 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
....
Carl Sagan
.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG)
Ah, Carl Sagan and his series "Cosmos"...
Brings back good memories : I recall, as an adolescent, being immensely fascinated by those tv-serie.
I still recall the scene where he walks through a (scale) model of the library of Alexandria.
It was really the first time that science was brought in an understandable way for a wider public.
Maybe I don't do him justice enough (for his other work), but personally, I'd consider the popularization of science as his most important achievement.
Now, many years later and with hindsight, i can say that, he, as no one else, understood the importance and the need to get a wider involvement of the public. To help people understand the importance of science and to find the right marketing strategy for science...
I don't have many hero's.. but... he comes close... :)
-
It would appear Roger is moving to set the record straight on the Boeing Flight Thruster saga as the just received email from Roger states:
Hi Phil
I notice that there has been some discussion on the NSF forum about the Boeing EmDrive connection.
I have been invited to do a filmed interview by a media organisation next week, covering my side of the EmDrive story. The interview will be done with an agreed script, as the topic is regarded as sensitive by those organisations that matter on both sides of the pond.
However the Boeing story is well documented, and these documents will be released into the public domain in due course. My comments on Boeing in the interview will be as the script notes below:
We were then invited by Boeing to take part in a technology transfer, which was carried out under a Technology Assistance Agreement (TAA) set up by the US State Department. Boeing offered a small contract payment, to be followed by a lucrative licence agreement. The UK MoD agreed to an export licence, and we designed, built and tested a Flight Thruster for use on a test satellite. The thruster gave 18 grams of thrust.
All design data was transferred to Boeing and the contract was completed by July 2010. We waited for them to sign the licence agreement, which had been prepared by Boeing’s lawyers and agreed by SPR. However, once the test data was confirmed, it all suddenly went quiet and we have heard no more from Boeing since then.
Feel free to share the above.
Best regards,
Roger
-
Well that can be read either way. Either the way Boeing have put it in the public domain that they ended their interest as there was nothing in the technology. Or the alternative version is that they didn't end their interest but didn't want their continued interest known publicly for whatever reason.
Does this actually get us any further forward though, because this has always been the two alternative narratives when it comes to this particular topic?
-
Well that can be read either way. Either the way Boeing have put it in the public domain that they ended their interest as there was nothing in the technology. Or the alternative version is that they didn't end their interest but didn't want their continued interest known publicly for whatever reason.
Does this actually get us any further forward though, because this has always been the two alternative narratives when it comes to this particular topic?
You have Roger stating Boeing confirmed the thrust before they turned out the lights.
There is more to come. This story is not yet fully told. There is more to be revealed in the interview.
Just sent to Roger:
Roger,
As you are opening this up to public debate, can you supply EW with a Flight Thruster?
If not, what about just the specs and they will build it.
For sure they have the Rf system to drive it and do freq tracking.
Please consider doing this.
Best regards,
Phil
-
Hmmm.... I think we should stay clear from drawing conclusions based upon such (commercial) deals.
There is often more at play than pure functional issues. We simply do not have enough information what really happened...
Are there smokescreen? and who puts them up? with what agenda? who tells half-truths? and is a half-truth a lie?...all hard to say...
Restructuring, budget cuts, personal internal conflicts, etc.. there is so much that can go wrong in a large multinational environment that a failed deal does not automatically mean a technology is a failure...
It is more satisfying to know that Roger Shawyer is actively reading comments inhere and is prepared to occasionally comment, be it it through the "hand" of TT .
I can understand his reluctance to directly communicate, as one should not underestimate the needless hostility that some people manifest.
added:
18gf... that is ALOT... :o
wished we could see that confirmed in other ways then from cryptic, stylized graphs.
-
Hmmm.... I think we should stay clear from drawing conclusions based upon such (commercial) deals.
There is often more at play than pure functional issues. We simply do not have enough information what really happened...
Are there smokescreen? and who puts them up? with what agenda? who tells half-truths? and is a half-truth a lie?...all hard to say...
Restructuring, budget cuts, personal internal conflicts, etc.. there is so much that can go wrong in a large multinational environment that a failed deal does not automatically mean a technology is a failure...
It is more satisfying to know that Roger Shawyer is actively reading comments inhere and is prepared to occasionally comment, be it it through the "hand" of TT .
I can understand his reluctance to directly communicate, as one should not underestimate the needless hostility that some people manifest.
Point being Roger has upped the stakes and has for the 1st time publically stated Boeing took delivery and confirmed the thrust.
Yes what happened after the thrust confirmation event may have other factors in play but that does not reduce what Roger has publically stated about Boeing confirming the 18 grams of Flight Thruster thrust.
-
BTW I have offered my spherical end plate frustum design to EW for their consideration as their next build.
It should generate Flight Thruster like performance but at the 2.45GHz their existing Rf system can drive.
-
....
Yes what happened after the thrust confirmation event may have other factors in play but that does not reduce what Roger has publically stated about Boeing confirming the 18 grams of Flight Thruster thrust.
Sure, but that brings us back to the wise words of Francesco Nicoli :
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.No surprise he isn't on that panel.
The fact that Roger Shawyer says that Boeing confirmed it is simply not enough as evidence that it works. Words have no scientific meaning... experiments and their data however DO...
So, what is needed to convince me and soooo many others here on this forum, is footage and data of a working 18gf device.
Why should we believe R.Shawyer on his word on something so controversial as the EMdrive (that is in APPARENT conflict of CoM) ?
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.
No surprise he isn't on that panel.
---
Besides, honestly, i think this behaviour is rather stupid.
IF EM drive works for real, but someone else develops the theory or shares the conclusive results first, hw won't get any merit for it: it will be someone else's name that goes through history (more precisely, the name of the person who does the first public & accepted demostrations, along with the names of those publishing the precise theoretical explanation of what's happening in the drive).
IF EM drive doesn't work, everybody will call him a scammer even if that wasn't his purpose to begin with.
From any point of view, it's a very suboptimal line of action. With his behaviour, Shawyer is locking himself out of the benefits its invention may produce either way.
If the emdrive appears to work, I hope that the name of the person that has discovered the phenomenon (I am not sure it was Shawyer, it seems there were other experiments before) will be remembered. No only the name of the scientist that made the right theory. Of course, the person who will provide a correct theory, maybe a general theory comparable with GR, maybe a theory that explain the cosmological data, will merit his name to be known, as Einstein, Plank, Feynman, etc.
But the person who made the physical invention still merit to be known. We still remember Ampere, Faraday, Volta, despite they have no explanation of the phenomenon. They did not knew the electron.
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work.
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work.
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black.
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work.
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black.
Since she published the nullification with peer-review, and the other information are not published, I maintain that she should not be in the list, we should wait she publy something else.
That is not an attack against the emdrive, just a try to be accurate :)
-
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
Let's go over the list in "scientific/skeptical modus" ?
I have measured thrust.
Possible, that is indeed what you said, but we didn't see much recorded data inhere.
We have only your word...
Dave has measured thrust.
Dave deserves a huge credit for his openness and straightforward reporting.
Sadly, his reported results still hoover way to close to the "background noise" and spark too much debate whether or not there was a force
Jamie has measured thrust.
Possible. As far I know he is still the process of refining his setup and testing. Too early to make a conclusion yet
Paul has measured thrust.
Possible. That is indeed what Paul March said "and yet the thrust remains". We'll see when the peer review has been publish what the comments and remarks will be, before accepting this as proof.
Shell has measured thrust.
Possible. Shell did report "something", but could not back it up with data. Sadly , she got a lot of FLAK for it. I understand and respect her reluctance to release more info, before she feels confident enough in her testing setup.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Possible, but the setup was very crude and controversy around buoyancy/Lorentz forces remained a heated discussion point. He needed better results to mount above the background noise.
Roger has measured thrust.
Possible, but the posted video has some issues that need to be addressed. For the rest , we only have streamlined graphics, intended for pitching rather then data obtained directly from the experiment (Like Dave did)
Yang has measured thrust.
Yes? NO ? The mystery wrapping around Yang's result only get thicker by the day, invoking "black programs" etc to either discredit or validate (depending from the side you're taking it) her results.
I'm really not sure what to think about it. Is there deliberate disinformation? maybe, maybe not?
Tajmar has measured thrust.
hmmm.. NO...
dr.Tajmar said that it was inconclusive and that his initial testing warranted further, more in depth investigation. He did neither disprove nor validated the EMdrive...He needs more testing...
4 others have measured thrust
No info = no conclusion
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result.
Mulltron has NO thrust
Mulltron produced a very detailed test result that resulted in a NULL result.
Emmett Brown NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
RFplumber NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
What I observe, as most of the active readers on the NSF forum , is that we have a lot of potential and intriguing results that really need more in depth research. But there is no bull's-eye yet...
So touting all these tests as "EM victories" seems definitely premature...
It doesn't mean the EM effect can't be real, only that the evidence for it does not weigh heavy enough to be conclusive. I hope you understand the important nuance...
(edited for adding NULL result tests to the list)
-
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
Let's go over the list in "scientific/skeptical modus" ?
I have measured thrust.
Possible, that is indeed what you said, but we didn't see much recorded data inhere.
We have only your word...
Dave has measured thrust.
Dave deserves a huge credit for his openness and straightforward reporting.
Sadly, his reported results still hoover way to close to the "background noise" and spark too much debate whether or not there was a force
Jamie has measured thrust.
Possible. As far I know he is still the process of refining his setup and testing. Too early to make a conclusion yet
Paul has measured thrust.
Possible. That is indeed what Paul March said "and yet the thrust remains". We'll see when the peer review has been publish what the comments and remarks will be, before accepting this as proof.
Shell has measured thrust.
Possible. Shell did report "something", but could not back it up with data. Sadly , she got a lot of FLAK for it. I understand and respect her reluctance to release more info, before she feels confident enough in her testing setup.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Possible, but the setup was very crude and controversy around buoyancy/Lorentz forces remained a heated discussion point. He needed better results to mount above the background noise.
Roger has measured thrust.
Possible, but the posted video has some issues that need to be addressed. For the rest , we only have streamlined graphics, intended for pitching rather then data obtained directly from the experiment (Like Dave did)
Yang has measured thrust.
Yes? NO ? The mystery wrapping around Yang's result only get thicker by the day, invoking "black programs" etc to either discredit or validate (depending from the side you're taking it) her results.
I'm really not sure what to think about it. Is there deliberate disinformation? maybe, maybe not?
Tajmar has measured thrust.
hmmm.. NO...
dr.Tajmar said that it was inconclusive and that his initial testing warranted further, more in depth investigation. He did neither disprove nor validated the EMdrive...He needs more testing...
4 others have measured thrust
No info = no conclusion
What I observe, as most of the active readers on the NSF forum , is that we have a lot of potential and intriguing results that really need more in depth research. But there is no bull's-eye yet...
So touting all these tests as "EM victories" seems definitely premature...
It doesn't mean the EM effect can't be real, only that the evidence for it does not weigh heavy enough to be conclusive. I hope you understand the important nuance...
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result. Forgot his name.. need to look it up
I kind of half expected another paper from Tajmar by now, what with his declaration of continued testing?
-
If I remember correctly, it was Mulletron
There are several.
BTW, there are two "Paul"'s. one is Paul March, another is the South Africa High school student who won an South African competition.
-
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black.
Careful, Phil. I took a TON of ehm.... "flack" on this forum for suggesting such a thing a few months ago. ;)
-
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black.
Careful, Phil. I took a TON of ehm.... "flack" on this forum for suggesting such a thing a few months ago. ;)
suggesting is one thing, knowing is another...
I have no problem with speculative rumors as long they're not presented as "the truth" and it remains VERY clear that they're ONLY rumors, nothing more.
-
I'll be leaving in a bit to attend the Advanced Propulsion Workshop and will not be posting next week.
Before I go I need to clarify just what it means to advance this idea of electromagnetic propulsion. First and foremost data is king. Innuendos, hearsay or boasts do nothing to get us to the stars.
"To the stars". Some will take that that this drive works and some will understand what it means. Long after we're gone the only thing that will survive is the solid data we gather. Innuendos, hearsay or boasts will fade into history, but if we do it right we may have a small chance. This drive may not be the path we need to take, the jury is still out and the only way, the only way to know for sure is doing the finest, repeatable engineering that can be done. Everything else is just hot air and nobody gains and this goes for both radical sides of the fence of believers and deniers.
I dearly want our children to have the stars and it HAS to be done right, otherwise this first small step can turn out to be a stumble. If the drive is not what some claim, we pick up the pieces and do something else. If it's real, then we lay the foundations for our children and their children. Either way, we still are laying foundations. Simple as that.
My Best,
Shell
PS: Off to do a Vulcan mind meld with everyone I meet this week... we'll see how that goes. ;D
-
...
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result. Forgot his name.. need to look it up
If I remember correctly, it was Mulletron
Also Emmett Brown and RFplumber (both on NASAspaceflight.com) got null results.
Emmet Brown test, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
also several pages of discussion after that.
RFplumber test, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
"These are all present. Yet there is no thrust. Sorry."
-
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
Let's go over the list in "scientific/skeptical modus" ?
I have measured thrust.
Possible, that is indeed what you said, but we didn't see much recorded data inhere.
We have only your word...
Dave has measured thrust.
Dave deserves a huge credit for his openness and straightforward reporting.
Sadly, his reported results still hoover way to close to the "background noise" and spark too much debate whether or not there was a force
Jamie has measured thrust.
Possible. As far I know he is still the process of refining his setup and testing. Too early to make a conclusion yet
Paul has measured thrust.
Possible. That is indeed what Paul March said "and yet the thrust remains". We'll see when the peer review has been publish what the comments and remarks will be, before accepting this as proof.
Shell has measured thrust.
Possible. Shell did report "something", but could not back it up with data. Sadly , she got a lot of FLAK for it. I understand and respect her reluctance to release more info, before she feels confident enough in her testing setup.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Possible, but the setup was very crude and controversy around buoyancy/Lorentz forces remained a heated discussion point. He needed better results to mount above the background noise.
Roger has measured thrust.
Possible, but the posted video has some issues that need to be addressed. For the rest , we only have streamlined graphics, intended for pitching rather then data obtained directly from the experiment (Like Dave did)
Yang has measured thrust.
Yes? NO ? The mystery wrapping around Yang's result only get thicker by the day, invoking "black programs" etc to either discredit or validate (depending from the side you're taking it) her results.
I'm really not sure what to think about it. Is there deliberate disinformation? maybe, maybe not?
Tajmar has measured thrust.
hmmm.. NO...
dr.Tajmar said that it was inconclusive and that his initial testing warranted further, more in depth investigation. He did neither disprove nor validated the EMdrive...He needs more testing...
4 others have measured thrust
No info = no conclusion
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result.
Mulltron has NO thrust
Mulltron produced a very detailed test result that resulted in a NULL result.
Emmett Brown NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
RFplumber NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
What I observe, as most of the active readers on the NSF forum , is that we have a lot of potential and intriguing results that really need more in depth research. But there is no bull's-eye yet...
So touting all these tests as "EM victories" seems definitely premature...
It doesn't mean the EM effect can't be real, only that the evidence for it does not weigh heavy enough to be conclusive. I hope you understand the important nuance...
(edited for adding NULL result tests to the list)
Thank you for a nice summary and kudos. I would only modify it by saying I measured 18.4 mN of torsion beam displacement force on Gen II, but it was not repeatable/consistent. While this is well over what Mr Li would predict for Lorentz, his guidance on my build did lead me (and him) to consider Lorentz force to not be a factor, certainly shy of 18.4 mN. However, sporadic test results due to magnetron heating/drift/degradation limited me to state that 18.4 mN was the highest displacement force but its unsustainable. Gen III, when I get around to it, will be self-contained and solid state. Thanks.
-
rfmwguy,
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view ???
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated...
-
Thank you for a nice summary and kudos. I would only modify it by saying I measured 18.4 mN of torsion beam displacement force on Gen II, but it was not repeatable/consistent. While this is well over what Mr Li would predict for Lorentz, his guidance on my build did lead me (and him) to consider Lorentz force to not be a factor, certainly shy of 18.4 mN. However, sporadic test results due to magnetron heating/drift/degradation limited me to state that 18.4 mN was the highest displacement force but its unsustainable. Gen III, when I get around to it, will be self-contained and solid state. Thanks.
Thanks Rfmwguy. DC Lorentz force might not be a factor in your experiment. However, The best way to address that is to quantify it. I learned the lesson from crackpot_killer's criticism to my own experiment. An easy way to do that is to short the 3 leads at the magnetron's end to create a loop, run 500mA DC through the loop from the power supply side, and measure the force.
-
rfmwguy,
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view ???
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated...
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
-
It would appear Roger is moving to set the record straight on the Boeing Flight Thruster saga as the just received email from Roger states:
Hi Phil
I notice that there has been some discussion on the NSF forum about the Boeing EmDrive connection.
I have been invited to do a filmed interview by a media organisation next week, covering my side of the EmDrive story. The interview will be done with an agreed script, as the topic is regarded as sensitive by those organisations that matter on both sides of the pond.
However the Boeing story is well documented, and these documents will be released into the public domain in due course. My comments on Boeing in the interview will be as the script notes below:
We were then invited by Boeing to take part in a technology transfer, which was carried out under a Technology Assistance Agreement (TAA) set up by the US State Department. Boeing offered a small contract payment, to be followed by a lucrative licence agreement. The UK MoD agreed to an export licence, and we designed, built and tested a Flight Thruster for use on a test satellite. The thruster gave 18 grams of thrust.
All design data was transferred to Boeing and the contract was completed by July 2010. We waited for them to sign the licence agreement, which had been prepared by Boeing’s lawyers and agreed by SPR. However, once the test data was confirmed, it all suddenly went quiet and we have heard no more from Boeing since then.
Feel free to share the above.
Best regards,
Roger
This is not the first time that a US Defense company has approached a British company with two contracts - a big one and a little one. The little one transfers the propitiatory information, allowing it to be reverse engineered. The big contract disappears. (There are variations.)
-
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
I'm fine with an incomplete or hurried text/article, if it wasn't for inappropriate use of the word "trend".
That made me react, because it was clearly a biased way of formulating.
It was however the perfect excuse to stand up for neutrality in this bizarre case of a "propellantless engine", so I hold no grunge... ;)
The point is how to weigh all these DIY results : there is a minority of tests that are most certainly negative and there is a majority of "possible positive".
Do the 100% null results count for more then the uncertainty of all the APPARENT positive tests? hard to judge...
-
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
I'm fine with an incomplete or hurried text/article, if it wasn't for inappropriate use of the word "trend".
That made me react, because it was clearly a biased way of formulating.
It was however the perfect excuse to stand up for neutrality in this bizarre case of a "propellantless engine", so I hold no grunge... ;)
The point is how to weigh all these DIY results : there is a minority of tests that are most certainly negative and there is a majority of "possible positive".
Do the 100% null results count for more then the uncertainty of all the APPARENT positive tests? hard to judge...
"Trend" is about null results are more recent and positive tests are older.
-
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
Let's go over the list in "scientific/skeptical modus" ?
I have measured thrust.
Possible, that is indeed what you said, but we didn't see much recorded data inhere.
We have only your word...
Dave has measured thrust.
Dave deserves a huge credit for his openness and straightforward reporting.
Sadly, his reported results still hoover way to close to the "background noise" and spark too much debate whether or not there was a force
Jamie has measured thrust.
Possible. As far I know he is still the process of refining his setup and testing. Too early to make a conclusion yet
Paul has measured thrust.
Possible. That is indeed what Paul March said "and yet the thrust remains". We'll see when the peer review has been publish what the comments and remarks will be, before accepting this as proof.
Shell has measured thrust.
Possible. Shell did report "something", but could not back it up with data. Sadly , she got a lot of FLAK for it. I understand and respect her reluctance to release more info, before she feels confident enough in her testing setup.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Possible, but the setup was very crude and controversy around buoyancy/Lorentz forces remained a heated discussion point. He needed better results to mount above the background noise.
Roger has measured thrust.
Possible, but the posted video has some issues that need to be addressed. For the rest , we only have streamlined graphics, intended for pitching rather then data obtained directly from the experiment (Like Dave did)
Yang has measured thrust.
Yes? NO ? The mystery wrapping around Yang's result only get thicker by the day, invoking "black programs" etc to either discredit or validate (depending from the side you're taking it) her results.
I'm really not sure what to think about it. Is there deliberate disinformation? maybe, maybe not?
Tajmar has measured thrust.
hmmm.. NO...
dr.Tajmar said that it was inconclusive and that his initial testing warranted further, more in depth investigation. He did neither disprove nor validated the EMdrive...He needs more testing...
4 others have measured thrust
No info = no conclusion
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result.
Mulltron has NO thrust
Mulltron produced a very detailed test result that resulted in a NULL result.
Emmett Brown NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
RFplumber NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
What I observe, as most of the active readers on the NSF forum , is that we have a lot of potential and intriguing results that really need more in depth research. But there is no bull's-eye yet...
So touting all these tests as "EM victories" seems definitely premature...
It doesn't mean the EM effect can't be real, only that the evidence for it does not weigh heavy enough to be conclusive. I hope you understand the important nuance...
(edited for adding NULL result tests to the list)
Of course no firm conclusion can be drawn from a statistically non-significant result obtained from only one experiment. But things may become different when we are considering several experiments conducted on a similar subject and facing so, roughly, the same sources of uncertainties. If we could have at our disposition a Bayesian statistic model of the whole set of experiments, this would help us to interpret with an increased confidence the meaning of a set of individualy non-significant/weakly-significant results.
Bayesian analysis is a kind of meta-analysis in which you combine observed data with your prior belief about something and end up with a posterior belief. In short, it's a way to update your belief.
May be the Wikipedia definition will provide a better understanding :
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
Now the difficulty would be to construct the common Bayesian model of all the experiments reported by TheTraveller !! ;)
-
rfmwguy,
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view ???
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated...
Yes, as I mentioned somewhere else, every presentation I've ever done to senior engineering managers or board of director types always involved a high confidence factor or it was never presented. EW has gone to extreme lengths to get that CF and I hope Paul's presentation goes well. I am sure it will, they took Mr Li's advice from his paper and doubled their efforts to resolve unwanted Lorentz forces.
Its been a difficult journey, with many obstacles, but so far its been educational; both with technology and with human nature aka Egos. Guess I'm one of the few people who has experimented with the thing and even more rare, one who has been transparent. I'm not sure the science community is willing to embrace transparency; showing all the results (even the failures) as they occur. While I understand the commercial nature of that decision, some of it might just be insecurity. Me? Nothing to loose and if I helped others along the way, all the better.
Don't give up on building one yourself. Partner with someone with high voltage/RF experience and have some fun. Just be aware it can be dangerous if someone without experience tries to get involved without the proper help.
p.s. There are enough test stands out there that you could design and fabricate one, then let someone else power it up.
-
What all we need is a calm, clear head, but above all, a few passionated engineers and a few brilliant minds that discuss theoretical possibilities.
Those last 2 elements are what sets the NSF forum apart from all other -pointless- bickering forums :
Without the regular feedback from the DIY people and the fascinating -hard to follow by times- theoretical contemplations, by dr.Rodal, dr Frasca, Todd Desiato, and others, This forum would quickly degrade in a meaningless brawl of pro and con EMdrive. It is the hardcore science inhere that makes this forum worthwhile following on an almost daily basis for me.
The least we can do, as bystanders, is attempting to preserve the climate of cooperation and respectful disagreement iow, guard the professionalism and not spoil it for those that do have a real contribution to make.
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
I was in Estes Park yesterday. Stopped by The Stanley and asked if the conference was being held there. Turns out it is being held at the YMCA. Unfortunately I had to fly back today and couldn't change my schedule to attend. Doh!
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
I was in Estes Park yesterday. Stopped by The Stanley and asked if the conference was being held there. Turns out it is being held at the YMCA. Unfortunately I had to fly back today and couldn't change my schedule to attend. Doh!
Not to fear...there is an emdrive hardware expo in the works...will keep people advised once it shapes up more than general chatter. Seems like the organizers will be insisting on proof of a legitimate design/build/test, which is probably a good thing. Not going to be a centauri deams type of thing from what I gather. An interesting year ahead for all of us I suspect...Locale? East Coast.
-
Hello All,
My previous post regarding a complete cavity computer simulation using a sort of deterministic Heim/Broglie-Bohm theory interpretation of the drive was not very popular. This is understandable. Regardless, at this critical stage of the development we need to discuss the key practical factors which would move the drive from the region of skepticism into reality. For this we need a "high" thrust frustum which goes beyond simple modifications of material or EM source.
I have been hard at work brainstorming possible improvements to maximize the thrust of the cavity. My latest preferred idea on a high Q thruster is based on the wave-cancelling theory of propulsion shared by our Finnish friend Dr. Kolehmainen. I also appreciate the more prevalent spacetime warp theory as being an additional factor in thrust creation as this has been extensively discussed in previous papers and has solid theoretical support.
The idea: A lattice of quantumly entangled photons in an easily permissive pseudo-metallic structure, or maybe some sort of metallic electromagnetic conductors to channel photon cloud movements. This structure would also have a cooling consideration as entanglement and heat don't like to mix - there are potential Infra absorbents for the outsides which could be used including Aerogel. Introduction of microwave EM, or alternatively injection of high energy pulse lasers would be most efficient as fuel (note here theoretical discussion of high energy pulse lasers on creating negative energy densities). The entanglement and channeling of photons would amplify the tunneling effects per the QV theory and also ensure more destructive interference per the prevailing wave-cancelling theory.
It is also possible to combine this with an open cone cavity as shown before. The open cone cavity could provide equivalent propulsion, and perhaps bonus collimated photon propulsion, with resonance still occurring if the walls on the sides of the cone provide deflection back towards the narrow end, or if there is an unusual (Cannae style) geometry. The channeling of photons within the metallic lattice is simply an abstraction of the existing "loop" designs. The entanglement is arguably the most important aspect of this advanced experimental design as multiple groups could be "merged" continuously to provide the destructive cancellation (here we could also envision two opposing EM injection points?).
If this sounds too complex and fantastic for you then let me summarize and add this key takeaway: Q may represent resonance, but resonance does not necessarily imply thrust. For thrust to occur, most theories rely on the energy density (read: imbalance) of the electromagnetic fields. The best route to improve thrust then is focusing on internal geometries, especially focusing on photon channeling for the maximum density of the photon clouds. In other words the frustum should not be empty just for the sake of better resonance, as others have noted.
-
Hello All,
(...)
If this sounds too complex and fantastic for you then let me summarize and add this key takeaway: Q may represent resonance, but resonance does not necessarily imply thrust. For thrust to occur, most theories rely on the energy density (read: imbalance) of the electromagnetic fields. The best route to improve thrust then is focusing on internal geometries, especially focusing on photon channeling for the maximum density of the photon clouds. In other words the frustum should not be empty just for the sake of better resonance, as others have noted.
There are those who would say that that an open cone is simply a "nozzle" so I would focus on what exactly is being focused or directed outwardwards. There is someone already experimenting with an open cone, Nassikas from Greece. Believe his design is superconductive magnetic...not following it closely.
-
...
Are you presenting Dr. Rodal? If so, do you have a quick summary of what you're covering?
Shell
Yes, I am giving a presentation (not anything I have discussed so far at NSF-EM Drive) on Tuesday, 20 September, during Block 3, 1:30PM-3:10PM, sharing this block with Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State, Fullerton). I will discuss a self-consistent solution, derived from Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, a computational model and several comparisons with experimental force results conducted in a vacuum chamber. Also experimental impedance spectroscopy results.
I hadn't heard of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitation before, so I Wikipedia'd myself up to speed.
On the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of Gravitation (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/286/1406/313)
It is shown that the direct-particle action-principle from which Hoyle & Narlikar derive their new theory of gravitation not only yields the Einstein field-equations in the 'smooth-fluid' approximation, but also implies that the 'm'-field be given by the sum of half the retarded field and half the advanced field calculated from the world-lines of the particles. This is in effect a boundary condition for the Einstein equations, and it appears that it is incompatible with an expanding universe since the advanced field would be infinite. A possible way of overcoming this difficulty would be to allow the existence of negative mass.
This should be interesting! :D
I will focus my presentation for space propulsion on an exact solution assuming a) solid material velocities much smaller than the speed of light and b) very small inertial mass fluctuations, and its comparison with experiments.
But addressing your question regarding the paper from Hawking in 1965, the Einstein-de Sitter model (used by Hawking) does not allow for an accelerating expansion. Heidi Fearn has a possible answer to that issue in this paper (pages 9 to 13):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269721882_Mach's_Principle_Action_at_a_Distance_and_Cosmology
EDIT: Basically, the expansion of the universe ( Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf ) allows one to define a Rindler cutoff for the advanced waves and so their integral, does not diverge. Of course Hawking back in 1965 did not know the universe was accelerating.... So Hawking was right at the time.
There are other possible answers (besides Hawking's answer regarding negative mass, and H. Fearn's answer), for example an n-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory like this one
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278121181_N-dimensional_Kaluza-Klein_universe_in_Hoyle-Narlikar_C-field_cosmology
In any case the present accelerating expansion phase of the universe, including the dark energy hypotheis, is still not satisfactorily explained to the complete satisfaction of the majority of physicists ;)
The paper also mentions the Wheeler Feynman connection with signals propagating backwards in time and the negative energy fields. This reminded me of the thought that the vacuum may be made up of matter and anti-matter superimposed with time running backwards for anti-matter, and it also having anti-mass. With anti-mass running backwards in time, it seems like it would appear to have positive mass, which then allows us to push off it with normal momentum. If the anti-matter/mass/time overlaps with its mirror twin, then maybe it seems the anti-mass may lose its positive mass properties becoming negative mass and canceling the positive mass, cloaking into the vacuum.
Some thoughts on the matter were that if we have polarization waves of matter/anti-matter and anti-matter has reversed time then that might give us an idea why we have the duality of advanced waves along with retarded waves. It might also give us a source of a negative energy C field?
I was thinking, in a cavity, normally the electric and magnetic fields are not highly superimposed over each other. They are out of phase in time and mostly separated in the cavity. However, if large enough electric fields were to cause polarization of the vacuum such that a current developed in the vacuum, and at the same time there was a magnetic field superimposed over the electric field then both charges would experience a force in the same direction. This might serve as a propellant which could absorb momentum and then re-merge to pass through the cavity. Any thoughts?
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
I was in Estes Park yesterday. Stopped by The Stanley and asked if the conference was being held there. Turns out it is being held at the YMCA. Unfortunately I had to fly back today and couldn't change my schedule to attend. Doh!
Not to fear...there is an emdrive hardware expo in the works...will keep people advised once it shapes up more than general chatter. Seems like the organizers will be insisting on proof of a legitimate design/build/test, which is probably a good thing. Not going to be a centauri deams type of thing from what I gather. An interesting year ahead for all of us I suspect...Locale? East Coast.
If you don't already have a venue in mind, I've got a line on a good one near the BWI airport.
-- Emory
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
Confirmed we will have emdrive tie fighters. Source: random article stock photo
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
Confirmed we will have emdrive tie fighters. Source: random article stock photo
Well we do not have any picture of the recent EmDrive units as people are keeping them to themselves. So I guess that is the reason for that picture. If you might have any pictures I have connections that can push them through.
-
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
I'm fine with an incomplete or hurried text/article, if it wasn't for inappropriate use of the word "trend".
That made me react, because it was clearly a biased way of formulating.
It was however the perfect excuse to stand up for neutrality in this bizarre case of a "propellantless engine", so I hold no grunge... ;)
The point is how to weigh all these DIY results : there is a minority of tests that are most certainly negative and there is a majority of "possible positive".
Do the 100% null results count for more then the uncertainty of all the APPARENT positive tests? hard to judge...
"Trend" is about null results are more recent and positive tests are older.
The only trend that can be reliably arrived at from the experiments that information is available from, experimenters building different frustrums, test beds and the using different EM power sources.., is that different frustums, power sources and test beds get different results.
All of the positive results could be artifacts and or systemic error or the real deal...., and all of the null results could be proof of bad designs or that the thrust is some kind of artifact....
We will never know for certain from any of the null result tests. Only when experiments that have returned thrust have been independently repeated with the same EXACT builds, and all systemic and other variables have been ruled out or identified as the source of the thrust, will any of us know anything with any certainty. BTW while Prof. Yang has every right to modify her conclusions, there is nothing about her second experiment and paper that nullifies the first. The two were far different in to many ways to be thought of as anything but different experiments with different builds, and I never saw anything published with enough detail that anyone could reproduce either frustum or experiment. That is the real trouble none of what has been shared about the many builds has shown two builders performing identical experiments.
I want to believe the EMDrive does produce useable thrust. Even small amounts (xxx mN) would be good enough. If that turns out to be the case no matter how it does it, it will require in the least a rethinking of our understanding of some fundamental interpretations of physics that has stood for over three hundred years.
I am skeptical that Gravity (as in Spacetime) is being manipulated, but I would be thrilled if that turned out to be the case. The potential for a concentration of energy, creating a gravitational field, has been in the math for close to a hundred years now. We just don't see gravity where we don't also see mass. So that part of the math remains theoretical.
Personally if there is real thrust (and I believe there is) I expect it will require no more than a far more mundane reinterpretation / understanding of the relationship and importance of conservation of momentum (CoM) and conservation of energy (CoE), with a greater emphasis on the CoE aspect. IOW as long as the energy balances out in the end, one could argue that CoM has not been violated even where the only exhaust is a dissipation of energy.
As long as I am on a rant here.., the idea of unlimited acceleration is almost laughable. There has been a lot of discussion about the Quantum Vacuum (QV), but not a great deal of clear description of just what that means. Still there is a growing consensus that the QV does exist, even where agreement on just what it is, is lacking. In any event, without a warp drive or some sub space engineering, that could take whatever QV model you believe in out of the picture, any object composed of atoms does not appear to be able to exceed something between 20-30% the speed of light before the atoms begin to ionize. (Which would result in the spaceship coming apart.) At least not in our labs or anything we can observe with any degree of certainty.., cosmologically.
-
BTW I have offered my spherical end plate frustum design to EW for their consideration as their next build.
It should generate Flight Thruster like performance but at the 2.45GHz their existing Rf system can drive.
这个位置电场强度低,耦合度低,我都进行过仿真。
-
https://goo.gl/oUOHsX
YMCA Estes Park Colorado - You can walk right inside the building. Nice google street feature. Something for us that are on another side of the world :).
It is very nice place for conference about the EmDrive :-).
-
I just read the IBTimes article regarding the SSI Estes Park conference which starts today. There's something about it, which I can't put my finger on, that worries me. I worry that too much is going to be said which will disrupt research and give the media sharks more chum.
One of the disadvantages of this forum its its open nature. On the other hand, if it wasn't fairly open I wouldn't likely be able to be here. The Groucho Marx gag, for sure.
I am concerned that I don't see mention of Prof. McCulloch presenting, or even attending. IMHO, his theory is the best explanation of the EMDrive effect.
-
I wouldn't take issue with the catalogue of success/fails in DIY testing recently posted, but I don't think all votes are equal.
If EW comes out with an unequivocal yes, given the apparently massive pressure on them not to stoke speculation casually, I think counts for many votes.
Read SPR's accounts for the last decade or so. Shawyer has had a lot of $$$ and many years to test his effect. To maintain it works, either it does or he is somewhere in the crooked/delusional/mistaken spectrum. It will be interesting to see if SPR continues to make money this year.
Cannae have a torsional pendulum operating in a vacuum capable, they say of 0.2 microNewton resolution. They claim to have measured thrust, and have announced plans to put up/find $$$ to launch a cubesat test. Again, they have either seen something, or are crooked/delusional/etc.
Yes, there is Rossi!
But there is a growing collection of powerful votes in favour of the tech actually working. I'd guess that explains the recent positive tone of this forum, and perhaps the timing of the conference.
-
There is an article on page 34 of the 20th August issue of the New Scientist on 'the ignorosphere'.
'...below 300km, [the atmosphere] is too thick for satellites to survive the drag forces for more than a few months.'
Cannae's cubesat is targetted at 240km for six months.
-
... We just don't see gravity where we don't also see mass.
This is wrong. There are non trivial solutions to the equations of General relativity with no mass present. These solutions without mass are called Calabi-Yau spaces-time, they present curvature and so gravity.
-
I just read the IBTimes article regarding the SSI Estes Park conference which starts today. There's something about it, which I can't put my finger on, that worries me. I worry that too much is going to be said which will disrupt research and give the media sharks more chum.
One of the disadvantages of this forum its its open nature. On the other hand, if it wasn't fairly open I wouldn't likely be able to be here. The Groucho Marx gag, for sure.
I am concerned that I don't see mention of Prof. McCulloch presenting, or even attending. IMHO, his theory is the best explanation of the EMDrive effect.
While also concerned with the ibtimes method of presentation of forum posts, I, for one, am happy to see some pointed collaboration taking place at the SSI conference regarding the EMdrive and multiple other related/unrelated (it is physics though) theories in a more private or intimate setting.
I believe more may be gained by such interactions, at least to those invested in rigorously investigating the matter at hand. And of course those willing and or lucky enough to attend.
I agree with the chum statement and personally don't agree with the way that article is displaying forum posts in a way disingenuous to the actual forum discussion and adding an unknown narrator's perspective of it. Which may be why I prefer such interest parties have the opportunity to collaborate in a way outside of the realm of news media.
I also wish McCulloch will have a say at this event. If not in person then through video of the event and further discussion that may, hopefully, be shared through this forum. Granted I'm more than happy to see some NSF posters being present!
Apologies for the non-technical interjection. Looking forward to further discussion as I've thoroughly enjoyed what this forum has to offer.
-
I wouldn't take issue with the catalogue of success/fails in DIY testing recently posted, but I don't think all votes are equal.
........
But there is a growing collection of powerful votes in favour of the tech actually working. I'd guess that explains the recent positive tone of this forum, and perhaps the timing of the conference.
It was never the intend of the listing to favor either side of the obtained results, but to illustrate the need for caution and not to jump to hasty conclusions.
The obtained DIY results are not straightforward and as indicated previously , I find it -in its current state- very difficult to attribute a "clear winner side".
So...with what we know today, anyone claiming positive or negative results from the EM drive is jumping the gun.
I am concerned that I don't see mention of Prof. McCulloch presenting, or even attending. IMHO, his theory is the best explanation of the EMDrive effect.
I'm not so sure that McCulloh Unruh effect holds the most promise as you say.
Can you elaborate why you have that opinion?
As outsider, I see 2 main paths in theoretical model development : those who relay on a momentum transfer system (Shawyer) and those who look for an alternative way , that has no direct relation with transfer of momentum (from EM wave to the frustum).
The reason for that is simple : there is an apparent (*) conflict with Conservation of Momentum.(CoM)
Those scientist looking for alternative ways (micro-gravity, unruh, QVP, etc) do realize the CoM conflict and are looking for creative ways to get around that elephant in the room.
Those alternatives appear, with today's knowledge, quite exotic and maybe even far fetched. This is also why there is so much hand wavering from traditional oriented scientists.
(*) note that I prefer to use the word "apparent", because I like to leave the question open whether we fully understand momentum transfer.
-
There is an article on page 34 of the 20th August issue of the New Scientist on 'the ignorosphere'.
'...below 300km, [the atmosphere] is too thick for satellites to survive the drag forces for more than a few months.'
Cannae's cubesat is targetted at 240km for six months.
The satellite GOCE has conducted a close to 4 years mission at 250 km altitude (255 -235 km over the full life). This satellite was devoted to make very accurate measurements of the Earth gravity (it was able to easily detect the additional mass of water in Amazonia during rain season). This satellite had an aerodynamic shape to reduce the residual atmosphere drag and was equipped with xenon ionic thruster to offset this drag.
-
SSI is to be applauded in this approach in sponsoring this veritable mind-meld of Physicists, PhDs, Educators, Engineers and even the highly interested who have a common mindset and goal.
Let us dream.
Shell
YES. Dreaming bold and beautiful dreams is essential to the mental health of individual and societies. And sometime hard and smart work makes those dreams come true.
-
As long as I am on a rant here.., the idea of unlimited acceleration is almost laughable. There has been a lot of discussion about the Quantum Vacuum (QV), but not a great deal of clear description of just what that means. Still there is a growing consensus that the QV does exist, even where agreement on just what it is, is lacking. In any event, without a warp drive or some sub space engineering, that could take whatever QV model you believe in out of the picture, any object composed of atoms does not appear to be able to exceed something between 20-30% the speed of light before the atoms begin to ionize. (Which would result in the spaceship coming apart.) At least not in our labs or anything we can observe with any degree of certainty.., cosmologically.
Since, in GR, as in Newtonian physics, there is no local difference between uniform motion, and immobility, I do not see why this limit to 20-30% of C.
In it's own referential, the speed of any ship will always be zero.
At the opposite, the most distant galaxies are moving away from us at 90% of C. Also, in the referential of one of them, the earth is moving to 90% of C, and I am still no totally ionized :P
Since the speed is only relative to a referential (as it was told for Kinetic Energy in thread 7) and since there is no absolute referential in GR, there is no speed limit other than C. There is no ionisation or coming apart. But, of course, micrometeorites become very dangereous, if their speed is high relatively to the ship
-
...I am concerned that I don't see mention of Prof. McCulloch presenting, or even attending. IMHO, his theory is the best explanation of the EMDrive effect.
My understanding is that the organizers were planning to enable a workshop discussion with a few such notable authors in this field (Breakthrough Propulsion), using a video and/or audio connection, due to their remote location. Hopefully this video and/or audio connection will be successfully accomplished, depending on the speed of the Internet connection at the workshop's facility. ;)
-
...
We will never know for certain from any of the null result tests. Only when experiments that have returned thrust have been independently repeated with the same EXACT builds, and all systemic and other variables have been ruled out or identified as the source of the thrust, will any of us know anything with any certainty. BTW while Prof. Yang has every right to modify her conclusions, there is nothing about her second experiment and paper that nullifies the first. The two were far different in to many ways to be thought of as anything but different experiments with different builds, and I never saw anything published with enough detail that anyone could reproduce either frustum or experiment. That is the real trouble none of what has been shared about the many builds has shown two builders performing identical experiments.
...
For the same builds what is important is the same thrust from the same frustum and antenna design for the same RF input properties. For the rest of the setup, the more different the better as long as measurement sensitivity and accuracy is maintained. Otherwise it still could be a systematic error in the measurement. Also specific modifications showing predictable changes in thrust would be useful as well (e.g. a coating to deliberately reduce Q by a factor of 2 also reducing thrust by that factor) Of course that is the second step, after a reliable signal is found to begin with.
Also you must have missed the part in Yang's second paper where she provided an explanation of an error source in the original that either would be the full cause of the result, or at least swamp any real signal making the data from the first experiment useless. While more detail on how she determined this would be helpful, there is no good reason to doubt the conclusion.
-
... We just don't see gravity where we don't also see mass.
This is wrong. There are non trivial solutions to the equations of General relativity with no mass present. These solutions without mass are called Calabi-Yau spaces-time, they present curvature and so gravity.
Yes! This is why I mentioned the fact that the potential has been in the math for a very long time. The difficulty is demonstrating the solution experimentally or through some unambiguous or perhaps undebatable natural observation.
With the exception of Dark Matter and even perhaps to some extent Dark Energy, both of which remain unproven theoretical solutions, where do we find any gravitational field that we can say with any certainty originates from anything other than the presence of mass?
While mass IS (in my opinion) a concentration of energy, not all concentrations of energy can currently be described as mass.
In a sense my point was and is, in that comment, that even though GR and for that matter even the Brans-Dicke theory are very successful descriptions of what we do observe of gravitational fields, as has been pointed out, not all solutions and/or predictions have been observed or confirmed.
None of this means that any non-trivial solution that has not been observed is not a real representation of reality. It just means that until it(they) has been observed in nature or recreated in the lab, they remain theoretical predictions.
-
As long as I am on a rant here.., the idea of unlimited acceleration is almost laughable. There has been a lot of discussion about the Quantum Vacuum (QV), but not a great deal of clear description of just what that means. Still there is a growing consensus that the QV does exist, even where agreement on just what it is, is lacking. In any event, without a warp drive or some sub space engineering, that could take whatever QV model you believe in out of the picture, any object composed of atoms does not appear to be able to exceed something between 20-30% the speed of light before the atoms begin to ionize. (Which would result in the spaceship coming apart.) At least not in our labs or anything we can observe with any degree of certainty.., cosmologically.
Since, in GR, as in Newtonian physics, there is no local difference between uniform motion, and immobility, I do not see why this limit to 20-30% of C.
In it's own referential, the speed of any ship will always be zero.
At the opposite, the most distant galaxies are moving away from us at 90% of C. Also, in the referential of one of them, the earth is moving to 90% of C, and I am still no totally ionized :P
Since the speed is only relative to a referential (as it was told for Kinetic Energy in thread 7) and since there is no absolute referential in GR, there is no speed limit other than C. There is no ionisation or coming apart. But, of course, micrometeorites become very dangereous, if their speed is high relatively to the ship
In the Newtonian sense the vacuum is an empty space. There is no quantum structure or element to it. As such there is no possible interaction between a moving object and the empty vacuum.
Within the context of GR things are not quite as clear cut. While we have no conclusive evidence that the spacetime of GR has any independent substance, that we could describe as a QV, experiments like the Gravity Probe B experiment and its confirmation of the frame dragging effect, tend to support.., or at least open the door to this kind of interpretation. If, in any model of the QV a physical object interacts with the QV to any degree, we are no longer dealing with a vacuum we can think of as Empty Space.., and we can no longer discount the possibility that that interaction has consequences, on either the QV or the physical object.
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
While as I mentioned aspects of and even perhaps the existence of a/the QV remains controversial, Unruh Radiation is generally accepted. While at classical velocities the impact of Unruh Radiation is generally insignificant to atomic stability, it is not unreasonable to expect that at relativistic velocities, the situation may be different.
Both the potential existence of Unruh Radiation and any interaction between a physical object and Spacetime, as suggested by the frame dragging effect, open the door to the potential that, relativistic velocities may result in the ionization of atomic structures.
All of this leads to, at least the potential that the idea that all things in motion tend to stay in motion may not be entirely accurate beyond the classical environments and conditions, that it has been proven.
-
...
We will never know for certain from any of the null result tests. Only when experiments that have returned thrust have been independently repeated with the same EXACT builds, and all systemic and other variables have been ruled out or identified as the source of the thrust, will any of us know anything with any certainty. BTW while Prof. Yang has every right to modify her conclusions, there is nothing about her second experiment and paper that nullifies the first. The two were far different in to many ways to be thought of as anything but different experiments with different builds, and I never saw anything published with enough detail that anyone could reproduce either frustum or experiment. That is the real trouble none of what has been shared about the many builds has shown two builders performing identical experiments.
...
For the same builds what is important is the same thrust from the same frustum and antenna design for the same RF input properties. For the rest of the setup, the more different the better as long as measurement sensitivity and accuracy is maintained. Otherwise it still could be a systematic error in the measurement. Also specific modifications showing predictable changes in thrust would be useful as well (e.g. a coating to deliberately reduce Q by a factor of 2 also reducing thrust by that factor) Of course that is the second step, after a reliable signal is found to begin with.
Also you must have missed the part in Yang's second paper where she provided an explanation of an error source in the original that either would be the full cause of the result, or at least swamp any real signal making the data from the first experiment useless. While more detail on how she determined this would be helpful, there is no good reason to doubt the conclusion.
I agree with your general intent above.
As I said Yang has the right to change her opinion/conclusions, but she did not say that retested the earlier build. There is no real way to know that her conclusions based on a different experiment were valid interpretations of the earlier results... And yes this is based only on the absence of any information explaining exactly how the second dissimilar experiment invalidated the first.
-
Yes! This is why I mentioned the fact that the potential has been in the math for a very long time. The difficulty is demonstrating the solution experimentally or through some unambiguous or perhaps undebatable natural observation.
With the exception of Dark Matter and even perhaps to some extent Dark Energy, both of which remain unproven theoretical solutions, where do we find any gravitational field that we can say with any certainty originates from anything other than the presence of mass?
While mass IS (in my opinion) a concentration of energy, not all concentrations of energy can currently be described as mass.
In a sense my point was and is, in that comment, that even though GR and for that matter even the Brans-Dicke theory are very successful descriptions of what we do observe of gravitational fields, as has been pointed out, not all solutions and/or predictions have been observed or confirmed.
None of this means that any non-trivial solution that has not been observed is not a real representation of reality. It just means that until it(they) has been observed in nature or recreated in the lab, they remain theoretical predictions.
In General Relativity the curvature of space-time is defined by two factors :
1 - The distribution of energy and momentum (mass is included in these terms). In your post you don't talk about momentum which should not be forgotten.
2 - The boundary conditions imposed on the equations.
This explains why even if there no energy nor momentum, the boundary conditions are sufficient to impose curvature to a space-time metric solution to GR equations.
Now you are right : the potential solutions to GR equations are quasi infinite and we have only one space-time to check their validity.
It is the same for the equations of acoustic : they are able to provide solutions that we have not yet heard ! It is why we have the pleasure to discover with our ears day after day new musics, new songs, new sounds !
-
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
In 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
....
Carl Sagan
.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG)
Ah, Carl Sagan and his series "Cosmos"...
Brings back good memories : I recall, as an adolescent, being immensely fascinated by those tv-serie.
I still recall the scene where he walks through a (scale) model of the library of Alexandria.
It was really the first time that science was brought in an understandable way for a wider public.
Maybe I don't do him justice enough (for his other work), but personally, I'd consider the popularization of science as his most important achievement.
Now, many years later and with hindsight, i can say that, he, as no one else, understood the importance and the need to get a wider involvement of the public. To help people understand the importance of science and to find the right marketing strategy for science...
I don't have many hero's.. but... he comes close... :)
I always admired and liked Carl Sagan but I have to say his statement about extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence has been used like a hammer to basically discount good evidence on many fronts. In truth, it really takes the same quality of evidence to validate anything and it is only our perceptions of what is extraordinary or ordinary that mess things up.
-
Hello All,
My previous post regarding a complete cavity computer simulation using a sort of deterministic Heim/Broglie-Bohm theory interpretation of the drive was not very popular. This is understandable. Regardless, at this critical stage of the development we need to discuss the key practical factors which would move the drive from the region of skepticism into reality. For this we need a "high" thrust frustum which goes beyond simple modifications of material or EM source.
I have been hard at work brainstorming possible improvements to maximize the thrust of the cavity. My latest preferred idea on a high Q thruster is based on the wave-cancelling theory of propulsion shared by our Finnish friend Dr. Kolehmainen. I also appreciate the more prevalent spacetime warp theory as being an additional factor in thrust creation as this has been extensively discussed in previous papers and has solid theoretical support.
The idea: A lattice of quantumly entangled photons in an easily permissive pseudo-metallic structure, or maybe some sort of metallic electromagnetic conductors to channel photon cloud movements. This structure would also have a cooling consideration as entanglement and heat don't like to mix - there are potential Infra absorbents for the outsides which could be used including Aerogel. Introduction of microwave EM, or alternatively injection of high energy pulse lasers would be most efficient as fuel (note here theoretical discussion of high energy pulse lasers on creating negative energy densities). The entanglement and channeling of photons would amplify the tunneling effects per the QV theory and also ensure more destructive interference per the prevailing wave-cancelling theory.
It is also possible to combine this with an open cone cavity as shown before. The open cone cavity could provide equivalent propulsion, and perhaps bonus collimated photon propulsion, with resonance still occurring if the walls on the sides of the cone provide deflection back towards the narrow end, or if there is an unusual (Cannae style) geometry. The channeling of photons within the metallic lattice is simply an abstraction of the existing "loop" designs. The entanglement is arguably the most important aspect of this advanced experimental design as multiple groups could be "merged" continuously to provide the destructive cancellation (here we could also envision two opposing EM injection points?).
If this sounds too complex and fantastic for you then let me summarize and add this key takeaway: Q may represent resonance, but resonance does not necessarily imply thrust. For thrust to occur, most theories rely on the energy density (read: imbalance) of the electromagnetic fields. The best route to improve thrust then is focusing on internal geometries, especially focusing on photon channeling for the maximum density of the photon clouds. In other words the frustum should not be empty just for the sake of better resonance, as others have noted.
.
It seems to me that what the Finnish team proposed could be tested relatively straightforwardly. Not trying to measure photon pairs from an existing EmDrive test device but a direct measure of thrust from a setup which mixed co-propagating waves which also cancel. If that worked it might be greatly magnified over what happens randomly in their view in the EmDrive. Can that be done? Has anyone tried that?
If I were an experimentalist I would split a laser beam and recombine it as two parts exactly out of phase but co-propagating in the same direction and see what happens.
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.
No surprise he isn't on that panel.
---
Besides, honestly, i think this behaviour is rather stupid.
IF EM drive works for real, but someone else develops the theory or shares the conclusive results first, hw won't get any merit for it: it will be someone else's name that goes through history (more precisely, the name of the person who does the first public & accepted demostrations, along with the names of those publishing the precise theoretical explanation of what's happening in the drive).
IF EM drive doesn't work, everybody will call him a scammer even if that wasn't his purpose to begin with.
From any point of view, it's a very suboptimal line of action. With his behaviour, Shawyer is locking himself out of the benefits its invention may produce either way.
If the emdrive appears to work, I hope that the name of the person that has discovered the phenomenon (I am not sure it was Shawyer, it seems there were other experiments before) will be remembered. No only the name of the scientist that made the right theory. Of course, the person who will provide a correct theory, maybe a general theory comparable with GR, maybe a theory that explain the cosmological data, will merit his name to be known, as Einstein, Plank, Feynman, etc.
But the person who made the physical invention still merit to be known. We still remember Ampere, Faraday, Volta, despite they have no explanation of the phenomenon. They did not knew the electron.
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
-
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
If the math is incorrect.
Shawyer would have been better off just publishing the data.
-
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
In 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
....
Carl Sagan
.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Carl_Sagan_Planetary_Society.JPG)
Ah, Carl Sagan and his series "Cosmos"...
Brings back good memories : I recall, as an adolescent, being immensely fascinated by those tv-serie.
I still recall the scene where he walks through a (scale) model of the library of Alexandria.
It was really the first time that science was brought in an understandable way for a wider public.
Maybe I don't do him justice enough (for his other work), but personally, I'd consider the popularization of science as his most important achievement.
Now, many years later and with hindsight, i can say that, he, as no one else, understood the importance and the need to get a wider involvement of the public. To help people understand the importance of science and to find the right marketing strategy for science...
I don't have many hero's.. but... he comes close... :)
I always admired and liked Carl Sagan but I have to say his statement about extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence has been used like a hammer to basically discount good evidence on many fronts. In truth, it really takes the same quality of evidence to validate anything and it is only our perceptions of what is extraordinary or ordinary that mess things up.
“Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence” applies to the Bayesian situation where you want to change a prior belief which is strongly in defavor to a new paradigm in a posterior belief more in line with it. If your mind follows a Bayesian inference process (may be Sagan's way of thinking) and if the prior and posterior belief are very different, you will have to apply many times the Bayes theorem with more evidence or information each time they become available to progressively update your believing. It can be a long and costly process which if not conducted at its end can let the new idea die.
Now on the contrary if you adopt from the beginning a more positive approach to something which is weak, delicate, largely unknown (like a new born which is full of potential and on which you don't imagine to put hard pressure), the process to become convinced will be far easier, even a small additional evidence will be of great value in your own edification and you will quicker converge to the correct assessment of the situation. This is may be the situation experienced by Shawyer and Woodward from the beginning with respect to a strange measurement for the first and for an intriguing idea for the second.
The rationnal Bayesian thinking can be the worst path to follow in some situation. It is why the Nature has may be invented the emotions as a better way to establish relation between humans and their ideas.
-
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
I would reword as: healthy skepticism is a vital part of the scientific method.
The difference is that skepticism is not always healthy, sometime it can be unhealthy.
For example, doing nothing the all day because you are skeptical of the possibility to do something good is very unhealthy. Refusing to try something new and not yet fully established is unhealthy.
-
Interesting statement from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334
Meanwhile, Boeing has apparently licensed its own version of the EmDrive and the Pentagon has shown a keen interest.
-
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
I would reword as: healthy skepticism is a vital part of the scientific method.
The difference is that skepticism is not always healthy, sometime it can be unhealthy.
For example, doing nothing the all day because you are skeptical of the possibility to do something good is very unhealthy. Refusing to try something new and not yet fully established is unhealthy.
True, but skepticism only becomes "dangerous" (sliding away to a form of nihilism, where nothing matters anymore) when you're unable to formulate answers to the questions you pose, to the doubts you formulate. You need anchor points that root you down before questioning everything.
Let me give an EMdrive related example:
You start with the acceptance that conservation of momentum is true. It has been proven countless times, so that is your anchor point.
At the same time , skepticism should give you the ability to challenge and question that "dogma".
Not allowing such questioning (because it has been proven to be true!) is nothing more then scientific fundamentalism.
The trick with being a skeptic, is that when you're unable to provide an answer to your questioning, you HAVE to fall back on the known anchor point. If you don't, you start loosing all direction and sense of what matters in life, or science in this case.
So contrary to what some people trying to push, my personal opinion is that it is fine to challenge the notion of CoM, but if you fail to prove/validate your idea, you should -for the time being- stick with what is generally known and accepted, CoM in this case.
I've seen it up close with my younger brother, many years ago, how skepticism can slide into a "nothing matters anymore, what's the point?" type of nihilism. So , yeah, there is a danger to it...
-
You start with the acceptance that conservation of momentum is true. It has been proven countless times, so that is your anchor point...
Well, in many cases conservation of momentum is _apparently_ violated in the lab. Apparently, because the violation can be explained by new physics (that's how they theorized the neutrino) or existing physics that hadn't been correctly taken into account.
Since this has happened a lot of times, it seems naive to automatically dismiss experimental results that seem to violate conservation laws. Often, better theoretical models and better mathematics can explain the anomalous experimental results without violating conservation laws, which is what EmDrive theory is about.
But dismissing laboratory results automatically, in unthinking mode, is what the "professional skeptics" do all the time in this and similar cases. This attitude is unscientific and often emotionally (or politically) biased.
-
Interesting statement from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334
Meanwhile, Boeing has apparently licensed its own version of the EmDrive and the Pentagon has shown a keen interest.
article of 6 months ago.
as far as I know, the "apparent" effect as remained so: there is no confirmation of either Boeing nor the Pentagon that such a device exists.
For what we know, could be a nice invention of the Journalist himself to spice up readership.
Waiting for references in the dream of being disproved.
-
You start with the acceptance that conservation of momentum is true. It has been proven countless times, so that is your anchor point.
It is certainly not proven at the level of the whole Universe for which the overall conservation of energy and momentum is not imposed by the equations of the General Relativity. It is even not possible within GR to give a meaning to the notion of energy of the Universe.
There are theorems in GR which identify the very specific conditions for which it is possible to talk of energy conservation within a limited region of the universe, but these conditions are easily bypassed as soon as exists an interaction with the whole remaining universe and if the geometry around the considered region is not asymptically flat.
So if Woodward device and EMDrive work thanks to Mach or Unrhu global interactions with the Universe it is not justified by General Relativity to impose on them a law of conservation of energy/momentum.
-
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
If the math is incorrect.
Shawyer would have been better off just publishing the data.
That is exactly what I meant. The math is incorrect, as it was explained earlier. So Shawyer's solution is incorrect, even if the effect his real, even if his formula was giving the right result.
In the Newtonian sense the vacuum is an empty space. There is no quantum structure or element to it. As such there is no possible interaction between a moving object and the empty vacuum.
Within the context of GR things are not quite as clear cut. While we have no conclusive evidence that the spacetime of GR has any independent substance, that we could describe as a QV, experiments like the Gravity Probe B experiment and its confirmation of the frame dragging effect, tend to support.., or at least open the door to this kind of interpretation. If, in any model of the QV a physical object interacts with the QV to any degree, we are no longer dealing with a vacuum we can think of as Empty Space.., and we can no longer discount the possibility that that interaction has consequences, on either the QV or the physical object.
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
While as I mentioned aspects of and even perhaps the existence of a/the QV remains controversial, Unruh Radiation is generally accepted. While at classical velocities the impact of Unruh Radiation is generally insignificant to atomic stability, it is not unreasonable to expect that at relativistic velocities, the situation may be different.
Both the potential existence of Unruh Radiation and any interaction between a physical object and Spacetime, as suggested by the frame dragging effect, open the door to the potential that, relativistic velocities may result in the ionization of atomic structures.
All of this leads to, at least the potential that the idea that all things in motion tend to stay in motion may not be entirely accurate beyond the classical environments and conditions, that it has been proven.
We are moving to 90% of C from billion light years distant galaxies. So, a speed higher than 30% of C is not a problem if it is relatively to a distant body. If it is a problem, it is locally.
Particles in accelerators on earth are also submitted to an important proper acceleration, so it may the important proper acceleration that causes the ionization.
We can not assert that an interplanetary ship in our galaxy would be limited to 30% of C. We have no evidence for that in standard physics.
-
Any news/updates somewhere from the SSI conference(s) ?
I thought it started yesterday, no?
-
Any news/updates somewhere from the SSI conference(s) ?
I thought it started yesterday, no?
I believe Dr Rodal said the videos would go up afterwards but didn't know when.
-
Any news/updates somewhere from the SSI conference(s) ?
I thought it started yesterday, no?
I believe Dr Rodal said the videos would go up afterwards but didn't know when.
Bah... patience is such an overrated virtue... :-\
-
'the ignorosphere'
Which both political candidates are utilizing to great effect to uhhhh.... "propel" their campaigns.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
-
Any news/updates somewhere from the SSI conference(s) ?
I thought it started yesterday, no?
I believe Dr Rodal said the videos would go up afterwards but didn't know when.
Bah... patience is such an overrated virtue... :-\
Understood, but out volunteer videographers are being worked to exhaustion, will have several weeks of editing I expect, and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December. Going to SSI.org and signing up to be a Senior Associate will motivate our team to work faster. ;)
-
...
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
...
We are moving to 90% of C from billion light years distant galaxies. So, a speed higher than 30% of C is not a problem if it is relatively to a distant body. If it is a problem, it is locally.
Particles in accelerators on earth are also submitted to an important proper acceleration, so it may the important proper acceleration that causes the ionization.
We can not assert that an interplanetary ship in our galaxy would be limited to 30% of C. We have no evidence for that in standard physics.
The particle accelerator comments are just completely confusing cause and effect. Accelerators are designed to use charged particles, because we need some way to push on them while they are in a vacuum tube. The best way to do this is via electric and magnetic forces, but that doesn't work on neutral particles. As a result we inject (still slow moving) ions into the accelerator to begin with.
Saying this means that atoms in space would randomly ionize themselves just because they are moving fast relative to something else is just bad logic. According to everything we know, the only way we would be limited in speed relative to anything (local or distant) is by collisions with slower moving particles. (Assuming we continue having means to accelerate) Space is pretty empty, so > 90% c should be fine.
-
....... and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December.....
The public entering that...euhmm... specific presentation... had to sign an NDA then? :)
-
....... and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December.....
The public entering that...euhmm... specific presentation... had to sign an NDA then? :)
So called second generation EM drive.
-
...
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
...
We are moving to 90% of C from billion light years distant galaxies. So, a speed higher than 30% of C is not a problem if it is relatively to a distant body. If it is a problem, it is locally.
Particles in accelerators on earth are also submitted to an important proper acceleration, so it may the important proper acceleration that causes the ionization.
We can not assert that an interplanetary ship in our galaxy would be limited to 30% of C. We have no evidence for that in standard physics.
The particle accelerator comments are just completely confusing cause and effect. Accelerators are designed to use charged particles, because we need some way to push on them while they are in a vacuum tube. The best way to do this is via electric and magnetic forces, but that doesn't work on neutral particles. As a result we inject (still slow moving) ions into the accelerator to begin with.
Saying this means that atoms in space would randomly ionize themselves just because they are moving fast relative to something else is just bad logic. According to everything we know, the only way we would be limited in speed relative to anything (local or distant) is by collisions with slower moving particles. (Assuming we continue having means to accelerate) Space is pretty empty, so > 90% c should be fine.
I agree. 90% of C is fine... but a micrometeorite of 1g would be enough to destroy the ship. :P
-
....... and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December.....
The public entering that...euhmm... specific presentation... had to sign an NDA then? :)
So called second generation EM drive.
Nah, I think HMXHMX was referring to the presentation of Paul March, scheduled to be published in December...
-
....... and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December.....
The public entering that...euhmm... specific presentation... had to sign an NDA then? :)
So called second generation EM drive.
Nah, I think HMXHMX was referring to the presentation of Paul March, scheduled to be published in December...
Out of interest has a so called second generation EM drive ever been shown in public?
-
Doesn't Shawyer himself believe the EM drive maxs out somewhere around 30% of C & that it is not capable of truly relativistic speeds? That it doesn't possess infinite acceleration.
Shawyer assumes at least 0.67C.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576515002726?np=y
Anyway, this subject send us back to the problem of Kinetic Energy.
1 :If the Emdrive gives constant thrust for constant acceleration, it acts as a free energy device, and violates CoE
2 : If the emdrive does not violate CoE, the Emdrive needs to give a thrust that decrease when the Kinetic Energy increases in a "still to define" referential. This referential for Kinetic Energy needs new physics. For example interaction of the drive with distant masses, with the Hubble horizon, with an aether, etc. There are many ideas that can give us potential referentials for Kinetic Energy, but they all need new physics.
Shawyer indicates that the thrust decreases when his ill defined Kinetic energy increases, but he does not take it into account in his peer-reviewed paper.
The relativist Kinetic Energy of a 10 ton spaceship at 0,67C in an earth referential would be
(10000*(299792458)^2)/sqrt((1-((299792458*0,67)^2)/(299792458^2))))-(10000*(299792458)^2)= 3.1191599e+20 joules.
The Energy provided to the emdrive by the 200kwe nuclear Power plant during the 10 years of operation would be :
200000*3600*24*365,25*10=6.311*10^13 Joules
If Shawyer had taken into account an earth referential for Kinetic Energy, the speed would have only been (I use classic kinetic Energy since we are far from relativist effect and I am lazy)
sqrt(2*6,311*10^13/10000)= 112347 m/s
A little more than 112 km/s IT makes only 0.00037C.
It is not the same order of magnitude !
Of course, I do not pretend that Earth referential has something special, it is just for giving an idea of how much there is not only a problem of pushing against nothing, but also a problem of Energy.
It would be great if the Emdrive was a way of using gravity of other masses. Directed correctly, it would steal kinetic energy to other corpses, as probes do with the flybys. In this way, no need for the ship to provide the Energy.
-
....... and at least one video has to be embargoed until after a paper appears in December.....
The public entering that...euhmm... specific presentation... had to sign an NDA then? :)
No "public" here, only academics who observe normal embargoe ethical rules. So no NDA.
-
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
If the math is incorrect.
Shawyer would have been better off just publishing the data.
Please point me to a post or page where the math is shown to be incorrect. I've seen that charge used often but it's not always as black and white as it sounds. Sometimes it's the logical or scientific argument that's in dispute rather than actual math. Thanks.
-
Alright ladies and gentlemen,
SSI posted first message. It is short, but according to them we should expect A LOT more information to come. As you can see they also posted two links to the articles that sound quite positive for the future of EmDrive.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-conference/
-
Alright ladies and gentlemen,
SSI posted first message. It is short, but according to them we should expect A LOT more information to come. As you can see they also posted two links to the articles that sound quite positive for the future of EmDrive.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-conference/
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
-
Alright ladies and gentlemen,
SSI posted first message. It is short, but according to them we should expect A LOT more information to come. As you can see they also posted two links to the articles that sound quite positive for the future of EmDrive.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-conference/
I wrote the second article, based mostly on info gathered here. "Positive" in the sense that I hope EmDrive works, in which case I would be very interested in theoretical explanations of how it works, sure. I would also love to see the faces of the smug militant skeptics when they are forced to admit that EmDrive works. But of course we must wait for solid experimental data and sensible theoretical explanations.
-
Doesn't Shawyer himself believe the EM drive maxs out somewhere around 30% of C & that it is not capable of truly relativistic speeds? That it doesn't possess infinite acceleration.
Shawyer assumes at least 0.67C.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576515002726?np=y
Anyway, this subject send us back to the problem of Kinetic Energy.
1 :If the Emdrive gives constant thrust for constant acceleration, it acts as a free energy device, and violates CoE
2 : If the emdrive does not violate CoE, the Emdrive needs to give a thrust that decrease when the Kinetic Energy increases in a "still to define" referential. This referential for Kinetic Energy needs new physics. For example interaction of the drive with distant masses, with the Hubble horizon, with an aether, etc. There are many ideas that can give us potential referentials for Kinetic Energy, but they all need new physics.
Shawyer indicates that the thrust decreases when his ill defined Kinetic energy increases, but he does not take it into account in his peer-reviewed paper.
The relativist Kinetic Energy of a 10 ton spaceship at 0,67C in an earth referential would be
(10000*(299792458)^2)/sqrt((1-((299792458*0,67)^2)/(299792458^2))))-(10000*(299792458)^2)= 3.1191599e+20 joules.
The Energy provided to the emdrive by the 200kwe nuclear Power plant during the 10 years of operation would be :
200000*3600*24*365,25*10=6.311*10^13 Joules
If Shawyer had taken into account an earth referential for Kinetic Energy, the speed would have only been (I use classic kinetic Energy since we are far from relativist effect and I am lazy)
sqrt(2*6,311*10^13/10000)= 112347 m/s
A little more than 112 km/s IT makes only 0.00037C.
It is not the same order of magnitude !
Of course, I do not pretend that Earth referential has something special, it is just for giving an idea of how much there is not only a problem of pushing against nothing, but also a problem of Energy.
It would be great if the Emdrive was a way of using gravity of other masses. Directed correctly, it would steal kinetic energy to other corpses, as probes do with the flybys. In this way, no need for the ship to provide the Energy.
As best I understand, Shawyer says conservation of energy limits the acceleration but once you achieve a certain allowed acceleration, you can go till relativity limits the speed or your onboard energy source quits. In the case of his interstellar probe design, the probe accelerates at 0.1g or less and gets to 0.67c as it crosses the Centauri system in about ten years mission time. It did not seem 0.67c was the limiting velocity of the probe wrt earth frame. It would keep going till the nuclear reactor winds down and or the well known relativistic effect that a constant acceleration in the probe frame would gradually diminish wrt earth frame due to relativistic dynamics which would apply to any source of acceleration.
Regarding the kinetic energy conundrum mentioned, I find the use of the Work Energy Theorem helps. In any observer frame, a constant force provides a constant acceleration (non relativistically for now but the theorem works relativistically too). The force integrated over the distance is always equal to the kinetic energy change and that works for any observer. There are two powers to consider. One, the power creating the force onboard the ship or probe, and then the mechanical power required by the work energy theorem. It is the second, the mechanical power integrated over time that equates to the kinetic energy change, not the input power to create the constant force. That's how Shawyer and Fetta compute things I believe. The two powers are independent. There is only an energy conundrum when one tries to equate the onboard input electrical power integrated over time to the kinetic energy change. The only case where this works is for pure photon rockets or beamed propulsion in which the total input energy is always greater than the change in kinetic energy. As a pure photonic rocket starting from rest in some frame approaches c, the input energy approaches the kinetic energy. A stretch of photon recycling over part of the trip would also lead to a false energy conundrum.
Both Shawyer and the Cannae Deep Space Probe designs exhibit this apparent kinetic energy conundrum and both are false problems in my view. I know many will disagree and that's fine. I've personally been on both sides of this issue. I wrote several emails to Shawyer myself pointing out his 'error'. Thankfully, he graciously ignored my emails. Now, I think Shawyer and Fetta are correct.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
You are of course right. But I think it is also driven by the fact that those people very likely reached the information we did not yet see. Of course after each time of excitement comes the hard part of realizing the truth and it is not always so shiny.
But on other hand an army of people were and still are waiting for news on EmDrive for more than one year. So I guess it is natural to be excited now.
Edit: I just realized - I would not exactly call them all optimists. Dr. Rodal is quite pessimist on the issue and I dare to say he is in the camp of critics of the EmDrive. It was only just recently that he is more optimistic on the issue. I really wonder why :-).
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
You are of course right. But I think it is also driven by the fact that those people very likely reached the information we did not yet see. Of course after each time of excitement comes the hard part of realizing the truth and it is not always so shiny.
But on other hand an army of people were and still are waiting for news on EmDrive for more than one year. So I guess it is natural to be excited now.
Edit: I just realized - I would not exactly call them all optimists. Dr. Rodal is quite pessimist on the issue and I dare to say he is in the camp of critics of the EmDrive. It was only just recently that he is more optimistic on the issue. I really wonder why :-).
Only one thing could account for his change of mind and that is experimental results.
-
As best I understand, Shawyer says conservation of energy limits the acceleration but once you achieve a certain allowed acceleration, you can go till relativity limits the speed or your onboard energy source quits. In the case of his interstellar probe design, the probe accelerates at 0.1g or less and gets to 0.67c as it crosses the Centauri system in about ten years mission time. It did not seem 0.67c was the limiting velocity of the probe wrt earth frame. It would keep going till the nuclear reactor winds down and or the well known relativistic effect that a constant acceleration in the probe frame would gradually diminish wrt earth frame due to relativistic dynamics which would apply to any source of acceleration.
Regarding the kinetic energy conundrum mentioned, I find the use of the Work Energy Theorem helps. In any observer frame, a constant force provides a constant acceleration (non relativistically for now but the theorem works relativistically too). The force integrated over the distance is always equal to the kinetic energy change and that works for any observer. There are two powers to consider. One, the power creating the force onboard the ship or probe, and then the mechanical power required by the work energy theorem. It is the second, the mechanical power integrated over time that equates to the kinetic energy change, not the input power to create the constant force. That's how Shawyer and Fetta compute things I believe. The two powers are independent. There is only an energy conundrum when one tries to equate the onboard input electrical power integrated over time to the kinetic energy change. The only case where this works is for pure photon rockets or beamed propulsion in which the total input energy is always greater than the change in kinetic energy. As a pure photonic rocket starting from rest in some frame approaches c, the input energy approaches the kinetic energy. A stretch of photon recycling over part of the trip would also lead to a false energy conundrum.
Both Shawyer and the Cannae Deep Space Probe designs exhibit this apparent kinetic energy conundrum and both are false problems in my view. I know many will disagree and that's fine. I've personally been on both sides of this issue. I wrote several emails to Shawyer myself pointing out his 'error'. Thankfully, he graciously ignored my emails. Now, I think Shawyer and Fetta are correct.
I agree about the fact that 0.67C is not a limit. That is why I have written "at least" My position is that there is no speed limit other than C, no speed that break apart everything.
Do you realize that if you assume constant acceleration for constant electric power, and no energy stolen to something else (kinetic energy stolen to distant masses, or energy stolen to the quantum vacuum, or any other mechanism to take energy to something external to the ship) you get a free energy device ?
You can use your spaceship going to Alpha century and coming back, it arrives more Kinetic Energy that it has spent of eletrical power ?
Just to be sure that it is clear about that.
Also, it can become a terrible weapon. The 10 tons spaceship coming back on earth at 0.67C would have more energy than several millions of Hiroshima bombs. :P
-
You are of course right. But I think it is also driven by the fact that those people very likely reached the information we did not yet see. Of course after each time of excitement comes the hard part of realizing the truth and it is not always so shiny.
But on other hand an army of people were and still are waiting for news on EmDrive for more than one year. So I guess it is natural to be excited now.
Edit: I just realized - I would not exactly call them all optimists. Dr. Rodal is quite pessimist on the issue and I dare to say he is in the camp of critics of the EmDrive. It was only just recently that he is more optimistic on the issue. I really wonder why :-).
I can only speculate that he did not spot problems (or was told so by others) from Paul March's December paper.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
They can be optimistic about their data, but I'm not sure they are optimistic about each other's data and theories. Let's remember not all of their theories can be right, and that in the worst case, probably none of them are.
Probably they are trying the waters and looking for feedback (criticism or cross-pollinating ideas) from people in similar situations and that are about to release something somewhat controversial upon the world.
Because this must reach the wide world eventually, where not everybody is friendly or even, willing to entertain the idea that these phenomena even exist.
-
...
We will never know for certain from any of the null result tests. Only when experiments that have returned thrust have been independently repeated with the same EXACT builds, and all systemic and other variables have been ruled out or identified as the source of the thrust, will any of us know anything with any certainty. BTW while Prof. Yang has every right to modify her conclusions, there is nothing about her second experiment and paper that nullifies the first. The two were far different in to many ways to be thought of as anything but different experiments with different builds, and I never saw anything published with enough detail that anyone could reproduce either frustum or experiment. That is the real trouble none of what has been shared about the many builds has shown two builders performing identical experiments.
...
For the same builds what is important is the same thrust from the same frustum and antenna design for the same RF input properties. For the rest of the setup, the more different the better as long as measurement sensitivity and accuracy is maintained. Otherwise it still could be a systematic error in the measurement. Also specific modifications showing predictable changes in thrust would be useful as well (e.g. a coating to deliberately reduce Q by a factor of 2 also reducing thrust by that factor) Of course that is the second step, after a reliable signal is found to begin with.
Also you must have missed the part in Yang's second paper where she provided an explanation of an error source in the original that either would be the full cause of the result, or at least swamp any real signal making the data from the first experiment useless. While more detail on how she determined this would be helpful, there is no good reason to doubt the conclusion.
I agree with your general intent above.
As I said Yang has the right to change her opinion/conclusions, but she did not say that retested the earlier build. There is no real way to know that her conclusions based on a different experiment were valid interpretations of the earlier results... And yes this is based only on the absence of any information explaining exactly how the second dissimilar experiment invalidated the first.
I do wonder about Yang and whether she was pressure by her colleagues to produce a negative result to protect the reputation of her institution. Radical thinking isn't exactly encourage in China after all. There of cause another possibility that the chinese military has taken her work and classified it but that a bit conspiratorial for me.
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
This is tricky to explain, and I won't especially on the horizon limit. But let me summarise what I learnt from Jim Woodward and John Cramer, that can be linked to your questions about the exchange of work and information between very distant objects in the universe. Some content can be found in Wikipedia, but most of them are in their books.
The instantness of inertia is obviously not limited by the speed of light. But aren't gravitational waves propagating at c? So how could very distant matter in the whole universe interact instantaneously with some matter accelerating here and now, if the origin of inertia is indeed gravity, as a Mach effect within Einstein's theory of general relativity?
In the 1940s, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman worked out the problem electrodynamics faced regarding the classical electron theory with their "action-at-a-distance" or "absorber electrodynamics", explaining the obvious instantaneous radiation reaction forces in an interaction with a distant "absorber", the Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time).
Later in the 1980s, John Cramer successfully adapted the absorber theory to explain quantum entanglement. He used the relativistic Schrödinger equation which admits advanced solutions. The source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.
Today, as we humans feel waves propagate forward in time, we just ignore the solutions that propagate backward in time. But mathematically and physically, there is no difference between the two classes of solutions, thanks to time-reversal symmetry.
Ok then, but how advanced waves, propagating backward in time, would work?
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), the transactional interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…?
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
...
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), the transactional interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…?
Very nice summation. My only nitpick is referencing the Wikipedia article instead of the latest Papers by Fearn http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-update/ (http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-update/). They do a good job expounding on Hoyle Narlikar theory of Gravitation alongside talking about the previous criticisms of the theory and their solution to the criticism. In addition they also derive the equation Woodward et al are currently using to predict thrust scaling for their MET device.
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
This is tricky to explain, and I won't especially on the horizon limit. But let me summarise what I learnt from Jim Woodward and John Cramer, that can be linked to your questions about the exchange of work and information between very distant objects in the universe. Some content can be found in Wikipedia, but most of them are in their books.
The instantness of inertia is obviously not limited by the speed of light. But aren't gravitational waves propagating at c? So how could very distant matter in the whole universe interact instantaneously with some matter accelerating here and now, if the origin of inertia is indeed gravity, as a Mach effect within Einstein's theory of general relativity?
In the 1940s, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman worked out the problem electrodynamics faced regarding the classical electron theory with their "action-at-a-distance" or "absorber electrodynamics", explaining the obvious instantaneous radiation reaction forces in an interaction with a distant "absorber", the Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time).
Later in the 1980s, John Cramer successfully adapted the absorber theory to explain quantum entanglement. He used the relativistic Schrödinger equation which admits advanced solutions. The source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.
Today, as we humans feel waves propagate forward in time, we just ignore the solutions that propagate backward in time. But mathematically and physically, there is no difference between the two classes of solutions, thanks to time-reversal symmetry.
Ok then, but how advanced waves, propagating backward in time, would work?
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), the transactional interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…?
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
-
Edit: I just realized - I would not exactly call them all optimists. Dr. Rodal is quite pessimist on the issue and I dare to say he is in the camp of critics of the EmDrive. It was only just recently that he is more optimistic on the issue. I really wonder why :-).
For Doctor Rodal, there is only a single answer: Data.
-
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
No excuse indeed! (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Transport-ebook/dp/B00BLS4VJG/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=) ;)
-
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), the transactional interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Curious that you mention this, because the enigmatic presentation of Dr. Rodal in the ongoing workshop at Estel Park verses precisely on Hoyle-Narlikar theory and its use to explain some experimental results (which ones, I don't know).
I wonder if Dr. Rodal is trying to use that theory or a variant for explaining other people's experimental results? maybe his own experimental results?
If so, that would increase the number of theories contending to explain these probably related phenomena of anomalous thrust.
Why do I say they are related? because if these devices (ME thrusters and the Emdrive) prove to provide any thrust in the lab, I highly doubt this is a coincidence and that they really are unrelated phenomena or based in wholly different physical principles.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
so not fair.
-
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), the transactional interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Curious that you mention this, because the enigmatic presentation of Dr. Rodal in the ongoing workshop at Estel Park verses precisely on Hoyle-Narlikar theory and its use to explain some experimental results (which ones, I don't know).
I wonder if Dr. Rodal is trying to use that theory or a variant for explaining other people's experimental results? maybe his own experimental results?
If so, that would increase the number of theories contending to explain these probably related phenomena of anomalous thrust.
Why do I say they are related? because if these devices (ME thrusters and the Emdrive) prove to provide any thrust in the lab, I highly doubt this is a coincidence and that they really are unrelated phenomena or based in wholly different physical principles.
IIRC Woodward initially derived his theoretical justification for Mach Effects from GR. Granted in its current form it is missing something he knew and admitted it needed; Advanced/Retarded waves for communicating with the distant mass of the universe. Not sure who started MET research down the path of HN Theory but all the papers on it have Fearn as the primary author.
As for Dr. Rodal presenting on HN Theory. I almost dropped out of my seat when I saw that post. Between Paul March's declaration that for him he sees White's QV Theory and Woodwards Theory as being two sides of the same coin. And providing Dr. Rodal the SSI link referencing Fearns latest papers on HN Theory and how it can be used to explain their experimental results. I Personally couldnt help but see some smoke on the horizon. I am eagerly awaiting the videos from the conference.
P.S. I saw HMXHMX say the videographers have to do some editing. Honestly, given the nirvana I imagine going on at this conference I would rather watch those videos unedited.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
-
A While back someone I believe Dr. Rodal had re posted(https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4ny575/52nd_aiaasaeasee_joint_propulsion_conference_july/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4ny575/52nd_aiaasaeasee_joint_propulsion_conference_july/)) a schedule of the AIAA Power and Propulsion conference that was to take place in the summer. Anyone remember this?
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
Your explanation makes sense to me. After reading the list of people that were said to be in attendance. I initially thought it was an even split of EmDrive and MET researchers. However, I checked the conference proceedings for the AIAA Power and Propulsion conference from this summer and noticed this paper by Tajmar (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2012-3862 (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2012-3862)). While it isn't immediately clear from the abstract this seems to be new test results for the device that inspired the MLT design that Woodward abandoned. So this particular conference may be more Mach Effect focused. With the possibility of using Mach Effect Theory as a way to explain EmDrive.
Does anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test campaign being reported in the december paper used a frustum design that included a dielectric?
-
Olá, não me interpretem mal, eu sou apenas um " vestibulando ", e eu sei que é errado dizer coisas sem qualquer fundamentação matemática e que esse lugar nao é destinado a isso, mas agora veio à cabeça uma teoria , imaginar que todas as coisas colidem com o campo de Higgs, e assim obter e / ou manter a massa , excepto os fótons, neste caso , os fótons dentro da cavidade emdrive ressoam e se conectar de alguma forma com os fótons para fora da cavidade fazendo do emdrive um "grande photon " tornando-se imune ao campo de Higgs campo e gerar impulso.
isso possui algum sentido, ou alguma viabilidade ?
--Google translate--
Hello, do not get me wrong, I 'm just a " vestibulando ", and I know it's wrong to say things without any mathematical foundation, but now came to head a theory, imagine that all things collide with the Higgs field, and thus gain and / or keep mass, except photons, in this case photons within the cavity emdrive resonate and connect in some way with the photons out of the cavity making emdrive a "big photon " thus becoming immune to field boson and generating thrust .
Does that make any sense ? Has some Viability ?
-
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
If the math is incorrect.
Shawyer would have been better off just publishing the data.
Please point me to a post or page where the math is shown to be incorrect. I've seen that charge used often but it's not always as black and white as it sounds. Sometimes it's the logical or scientific argument that's in dispute rather than actual math. Thanks.
The errors are everywhere in his papers. They are not usually math errors such as 1+1=3, but there are multiple ways to prove 1+1=3 using Shawyer's claims. Logic is a branch of mathematics so when he fails at logic, he fails at math. Also Math and Physics errors are hard to separate. Which is it when he swaps a sign on a Force to make it seem like the prediction is that the drive moves to the small end? When his theory would result in it moving big end first if you accepted his premise and ignored the other physics errors and contradictions.
I could point you to some specific of my old posts with lists of mistakes in his theory. (Just my posts because I know where to find them)
...
Regarding the kinetic energy conundrum mentioned, I find the use of the Work Energy Theorem helps. In any observer frame, a constant force provides a constant acceleration (non relativistically for now but the theorem works relativistically too). The force integrated over the distance is always equal to the kinetic energy change and that works for any observer. There are two powers to consider. One, the power creating the force onboard the ship or probe, and then the mechanical power required by the work energy theorem. It is the second, the mechanical power integrated over time that equates to the kinetic energy change, not the input power to create the constant force. That's how Shawyer and Fetta compute things I believe. The two powers are independent. There is only an energy conundrum when one tries to equate the onboard input electrical power integrated over time to the kinetic energy change. The only case where this works is for pure photon rockets or beamed propulsion in which the total input energy is always greater than the change in kinetic energy. As a pure photonic rocket starting from rest in some frame approaches c, the input energy approaches the kinetic energy. A stretch of photon recycling over part of the trip would also lead to a false energy conundrum.
Both Shawyer and the Cannae Deep Space Probe designs exhibit this apparent kinetic energy conundrum and both are false problems in my view. I know many will disagree and that's fine. I've personally been on both sides of this issue. I wrote several emails to Shawyer myself pointing out his 'error'. Thankfully, he graciously ignored my emails. Now, I think Shawyer and Fetta are correct.
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
Unfortunately in many KIndle books mathematical formulas are rendered rather poorly. I prefer good old PDFs, and iPads (especially iPad minis) are ideal reading devices for PDF books. These days, good PDF scans of most science books (including this book) are easy to find online.
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists. ;)
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
Unfortunately in many KIndle books mathematical formulas are rendered rather poorly. I prefer good old PDFs, and iPads (especially iPad minis) are ideal reading devices for PDF books. These days, good PDF scans of most science books (including this book) are easy to find online.
I read Kindle on my mobile using the app. Also Kindle have done a lot to improve their rendering of items.
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
Because Holographic Principle?
Seriously though, we may all be (many) squiggles on the 2 dimensional cosmic horizon or (many) quantized vortices in the spacetime superfluid. Who knows!?
As for Dr. Rodal presenting on HN Theory. I almost dropped out of my seat when I saw that post. Between Paul March's declaration that for him he sees White's QV Theory and Woodwards Theory as being two sides of the same coin. And providing Dr. Rodal the SSI link referencing Fearns latest papers on HN Theory and how it can be used to explain their experimental results. I Personally couldnt help but see some smoke on the horizon. I am eagerly awaiting the videos from the conference.
I think what it boils down to is that anything new kinda has to be "two sides of the same coin" or we would have spotted before now. It's a particle! No, it's a wave! No, it's a particle! No, it's a pilot wave! Anyway, you get my drift. If two or more of these theories are converging on the same mathematical descriptions/predictions, then I think we're really onto something here! Hooray!
Also, am I the only one who's intrigued by the coincidentally close timing of the SSI conference and Elon Musk's recent tweets?
Turns out MCT can go well beyond Mars, so will need a new name…
and Maybe Ultimate Spaceship, Version 2? Mostly because it is not the ultimate and there isn't a version 1.
If Shell and other builders can make the progress that they may or may not have made on shoestring budgets using household microwave magnetrons and some elbow grease, what has Elon been able to accomplish in that time? I sincerely doubt that he's never heard of the EM Drive, the Q Drive or the Mach Effect Thruster. And let's face it, the promise of the technology, if it works, is well worth a couple tens of millions in R&D.
In fact, maybe he's got his whole A team working on the SpaceX Ultimate Spaceship Version 2, complete with EM Drive based propulsion? If he does, that means his B team is working on the Falcon 9... Which could explain why they keep blowing up... Hmmm... Coincidence?
-
Mr. Robert Smith from SSI shared some nice photo with us :).
Behold NSF community - our beautiful builder SeeShells :) and with Mr. Gary Hudson president of SSI.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/#comment-35841
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
Integrating the theories is an intriguing possibility, and I would like to hear more about that. Is anyone discussing McCulloch's theories?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
By the way I see that Cramer is mentioned in this thread. Is he there?
-
Does anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test campaign being reported in the december paper used a frustum design that included a dielectric?
Was the same frustum as used in the atmo test paper, with maybe a few upgrades on the Rf side. So yes there was a dielectric at the small end.
-
Mr. Robert Smith from SSI shared some nice photo with us :).
Behold NSF community - our beautiful builder SeeShells :) and with Mr. Gary Hudson president of SSI.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/#comment-35841
Thank you. I can imagine people will be examining that white board in the image.
-
Mr. Robert Smith from SSI shared some nice photo with us :).
Behold NSF community - our beautiful builder SeeShells :) and with Mr. Gary Hudson president of SSI.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/#comment-35841
Thank you. I can imagine people will be examining that white board in the image.
Exactly. What is Mr. Hudson pointing at?
-
Build Update
While I await the delivery of the 1st 2 spherical end plate thrusters, work has continued on the control and monitoring system as attached.
Goal here is to eliminate as much of the microwave engineering black magic as possible by using a commercial Rf amp that has inbuilt 31dBm variable attenuator, forward & reflected power measurement, min 3:1 VSWR at full power protection and automatic shutdown on limits exceeded.
Freq generation is done by the use of a commercially available Rf gen, that is USB controlled and can step the output freq +-1kHz plus has inbuilt sweep capability.
The very important freq tracking on lowest reflected power is done via a custom 16 bit MicroChip cpu with USB interface that is in development. This unit will be made available but it will need to be interfaced to the specified freq generator and Rf amp. The freq tracker design will also be made available.
Additionally there is needed a Windows based control and monitoring software package that is in development and will be made available.
Plans for the thruster have been disclosed and further full engineering drawings will be made available.
Overall goal is to make available to who ever wishes to engage EmDrive research, a simple to use package that eliminates almost all the detailed tech specific knowledge and can place in the hands of developers and researchers a complete working EmDrive system.
Please PM if you have an interest to be involved as this system moves forward.
To be very clear, full BOM and supplier lists will be provided to those who wish to do their own build and there will then be no need to obtain anything from me but the free data for replication.
-
Does anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test campaign being reported in the december paper used a frustum design that included a dielectric?
Was the same frustum as used in the atmo test paper, with maybe a few upgrades on the Rf side. So yes there was a dielectric at the small end.
From old information posted by Paul March long ago, it seemed the amplifier was moved from far away to on top of the big plate of the frustum.
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?
-
Does anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test campaign being reported in the december paper used a frustum design that included a dielectric?
Was the same frustum as used in the atmo test paper, with maybe a few upgrades on the Rf side. So yes there was a dielectric at the small end.
From old information posted by Paul March long ago, it seemed the amplifier was moved from far away to on top of the big plate of the frustum.
I though Mr March was at one point intending to build a new frustum?
The in vac test champaign was completed in 2015. I understand further improvements have been made to the vac test thruster and Rf system.
My frustum design was offered to EW for their next build. The wavy side wall currents are due to the coupling antenna position not being ideal in the FEKO simulation.
I intend to do whatever is necessary to keep developing EmDrive build and test information as open sourced as possible.
-
Mr. Robert Smith from SSI shared some nice photo with us :).
Behold NSF community - our beautiful builder SeeShells :) and with Mr. Gary Hudson president of SSI.
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/#comment-35841
Thank you. I can imagine people will be examining that white board in the image.
Exactly. What is Mr. Hudson pointing at?
Don't read too much into what's on the whiteboard. Many people used it during the course of presentations, the boards weren't erased between every session, and I have no idea what I'm pointing at. My staff simply asked me to smile and point to make a nice photo. :)
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?
Bingo. Lots of things may act as dielectrics.
-
Build Update
While I await the delivery of the 1st 2 spherical end plate thrusters, work has continued on the control and monitoring system as attached.
I use a fanless mini computer running windows 10 mounted to the torsional pendulum beam. I control that computer via VPN and a laptop. Its batteries are good for 4 hours between charges. A cheaper alternative is a wireless USB hub, but that can be buggy and lacks the versatility of an onboard computer.
-
Build Update
While I await the delivery of the 1st 2 spherical end plate thrusters, work has continued on the control and monitoring system as attached.
I use a fanless mini computer running windows 10 mounted to the torsional pendulum beam. I control that computer via VPN and a laptop. Its batteries are good for 4 hours between charges. A cheaper alternative is a wireless USB hub, but that can be buggy and lacks the versatility of an onboard computer.
When you move to a solid state amp and single freq generator, you will need the ability to monitor the reflected power from the frustum and to adjust the freq to obtain min reflected power in the designed mode.
I designed in an off the shelf Rf amp that has inbuilt attenuation and power monitoring as attached as it vastly simplifies the build and number of cables and connectors (both Rf and DC power) involved.
Additionally an off the shelf single freq programmable Rf generator was designed in that allows control via USB interface (really a RS232 interface over USB).
When my freq tracker build is completed, the schematics, PCB layout and source code will be made available but to use it will require the use of the designed in freq gen and Rf amp.
My goal here is to stop others needing to reinvent the lowest reflected power Rf Freq tracker wheel and to have 3 modules, tracker, Rf gen and Rf amp that are available off the shelf.
While my thruster efforts are currently focused on the spherical end plate unit, it is my intention to also have a simpler to build flat end plate thruster that will link with the Rf system I'm developing.
If you are interested in building a flat end plate 2.45GHz TE013 thruster maybe we can work together to make the design data for that unit openly available? As the power levels are relative low, a simple way to build a coupler would be a 1/4 wave stub antenna sticking into the centre of the central TE013 lobe. Would not use that idea at higher power as it may turn into a match stick but at the 100Wrf level it should be OK.
-
Build Update
While I await the delivery of the 1st 2 spherical end plate thrusters, work has continued on the control and monitoring system as attached.
I use a fanless mini computer running windows 10 mounted to the torsional pendulum beam. I control that computer via VPN and a laptop. Its batteries are good for 4 hours between charges. A cheaper alternative is a wireless USB hub, but that can be buggy and lacks the versatility of an onboard computer.
When you move to a solid state amp and single freq generator, you will need the ability to monitor the reflected power from the frustum and to adjust the freq to obtain min reflected power in the designed mode.
I designed in an off the shelf Rf amp that has inbuilt attenuation and power monitoring as attached as it vastly simplifies the build and number of cables and connectors (both Rf and DC power) involved.
Additionally an off the shelf single freq programmable Rf generator was designed in that allows control via USB interface (really a RS232 interface over USB).
When my freq tracker build is completed, the schematics, PCB layout and source code will be made available but to use it will require the use of the designed in freq gen and Rf amp.
My goal here is to stop others needing to reinvent the lowest reflected power Rf Freq tracker wheel and to have 3 modules, tracker, Rf gen and Rf amp that are available off the shelf.
While my thruster efforts are currently focused on the spherical end plate unit, it is my intention to also have a simpler to build flat end plate thruster that will link with the Rf system I'm developing.
If you are interested in building a flat end plate 2.45GHz TE013 thruster maybe we can work together to make the design data for that unit openly available? As the power levels are relative low, a simple way to build a coupler would be a 1/4 wave stub antenna sticking into the centre of the central TE013 lobe. Would not use that idea at higher power as it may turn into a match stick but at the 100Wrf level it should be OK.
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?
Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Its become apparent with DIY and professional lab testing that something is there and designers and theorists are struggling to get their minds around it. I think the worst thing that could happen is Mach Effect and EmDrive proponents take sides and battle one another. They should look for commonality and pursue designs as they see fit. If commonality is found, public sharing of this info would be critical to quicker advancement in advanced propulsion.
I guess what I am "preaching" about is collaboration rather than taking sides...if that makes sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter has been occurring too often.
-
Flux_Capacitor
"Today, as we humans feel waves propagate forward in time, we just ignore the solutions that propagate backward in time. But mathematically and physically, there is no difference between the two classes of solutions, thanks to time-reversal symmetry."
This is our error. Time is a dynamical spontaneous process. This spontaneous direction goes only one way. This process is a point like recursive explosion a la Wheeler foam. The arrow of time is this point explosion never going back to the point of origin. I don't think we could ever reverse time ....
Marcel,
-
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
The Rf amp has a 50dBm output (100W) and a gain of 50dB, so needs 1dBm of input drive. Which the indicated Rf freq gen can easily provide. Seems to be a good design. Also note the control is RS232 over USB.
This is the unit I'm using. It also functions as a spectrum scanner:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/138Mhz-4-4Ghz-Usb-Sma-Signal-Source-Signal-Generator-Simple-Spectrum-Analyzer-M-/291762565680?hash=item43ee677230:g:e~IAAOSwWntXNP~D
I suspect they all use the same or similar chip sets.
-
I though Mr March was at one point intending to build a new frustum?
...
I intend to do whatever is necessary to keep developing EmDrive build and test information as open sourced as possible.
Is it possible that you post the photos of your original 8mN test? It is the one that utilized a digital scale.
-
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
-
I though Mr March was at one point intending to build a new frustum?
...
I intend to do whatever is necessary to keep developing EmDrive build and test information as open sourced as possible.
Is it possible that you post the photos of your original 8mN test? It is the one that utilized a digital scale.
Didn't take any photos as the Rf amp died during a test sequence.
It was sent away to be repaired but was lost in shipment. Additionally the frustum didn't have attached end plates, just gravity stacked on the scale. The original frustum was sent to the fabricators of the new spherical end plate frustums to have flanges fitted. That is now completed and awaiting rtn shipment.
Have bought 2 more amps. Was expecting to ship the 2 new amps, the rebuilt original thruster & the 2 x spherical end plate thrusters to Oz mid Oct to continue testing. However during temperature soaking and cycling -50C to 150C both of the plated Aluminium thrusters suffered delamination at the Ni to Al interface. Efforts to recover are ongoing. Did discuss this with Roger and he advised doing coatings on Al space rated micowave components is possible and can be long term reliable, it is very specialised work that is expensive. Highly polished Cu may be the next build if the 2 existing thrusters can't be salvaged.
While there is uncertainty about the future of the machined Al thrusters, the refurbished Cu flat end plate thruster & the 2 new Rf amps will be shipped back to Oz mid Oct to continue development and integration with the freq tracker. Once that is completed, there will be a report generated and videos of thrust generation, via scale measurement posted.
If the work done on the refurbished thruster works well, the higher Q should increase thrust into the high 10s to low 20s of mNs, which should be enough to do a good rotary test rig demo & video.
-
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
Both units can step or adj at +-1kHz.
-
But this one even nicer: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
-
Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Believe the Mach Effect and the Shawyer Effect are very different effects. But time will tell as more and more devices of both effects are built, tested & studied.
And Yes Dave currently holds the Trophy for the highest DIY EmDrive thrust measurement at 18.4mN. But not for long. Was targeting 40mN this year but will be happy with 25mN and taking the Trophy back.
-
But this one even nicer: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
Interesting as the $100 unit I use also has a spectrum scan function which seems to have the same sweep specs. When playing with a maggie, did use the scan function to look for maggie freq lock to the frustum high Q resonance freq. Worked OK as a basic freq scanner.
-
This is the unit I'm using. It also functions as a spectrum scanner:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/138Mhz-4-4Ghz-Usb-Sma-Signal-Source-Signal-Generator-Simple-Spectrum-Analyzer-M-/291762565680?hash=item43ee677230:g:e~IAAOSwWntXNP~D
I have that same unit. The software is limited compared to the SynthUSBII, but it seems like a solid sig gen.
I also have the miniVNA Tiny: http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/ It also doubles as a sign gen.
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?
Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Its become apparent with DIY and professional lab testing that something is there and designers and theorists are struggling to get their minds around it. I think the worst thing that could happen is Mach Effect and EmDrive proponents take sides and battle one another. They should look for commonality and pursue designs as they see fit. If commonality is found, public sharing of this info would be critical to quicker advancement in advanced propulsion.
I guess what I am "preaching" about is collaboration rather than taking sides...if that makes sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter has been occurring too often.
Hi RFmwguy,
Has there been any talk about the MW resonance setting up a similar effect to cooper pairing in the photons? Just thinking if the standing waves were some how exhibiting fermionic tendancies it may have an associated degenerate pressure on the copper of the Frostrum. And therefore almost separate to the thermal affects. Given that copper is well within the 'anomalous' orbital configuration of 4d 3s overlap wondering if it might show some effect on overall depth penetration? Still wouldn't know how it would violate CoM but it's the only strange things I could even start to question.
Thanks
-
...
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
...
We are moving to 90% of C from billion light years distant galaxies. So, a speed higher than 30% of C is not a problem if it is relatively to a distant body. If it is a problem, it is locally.
Particles in accelerators on earth are also submitted to an important proper acceleration, so it may the important proper acceleration that causes the ionization.
We can not assert that an interplanetary ship in our galaxy would be limited to 30% of C. We have no evidence for that in standard physics.
The particle accelerator comments are just completely confusing cause and effect. Accelerators are designed to use charged particles, because we need some way to push on them while they are in a vacuum tube. The best way to do this is via electric and magnetic forces, but that doesn't work on neutral particles. As a result we inject (still slow moving) ions into the accelerator to begin with.
Saying this means that atoms in space would randomly ionize themselves just because they are moving fast relative to something else is just bad logic. According to everything we know, the only way we would be limited in speed relative to anything (local or distant) is by collisions with slower moving particles. (Assuming we continue having means to accelerate) Space is pretty empty, so > 90% c should be fine.
The quote above from my earlier post is out of context and as is now obvious my intent was not clear and/or I should have supplied a great deal more supporting information. Without starting what would wind up an off topic debate, the full quote is below followed an attempt to clarify my intent.
In the Newtonian sense the vacuum is an empty space. There is no quantum structure or element to it. As such there is no possible interaction between a moving object and the empty vacuum.
Within the context of GR things are not quite as clear cut. While we have no conclusive evidence that the spacetime of GR has any independent substance, that we could describe as a QV, experiments like the Gravity Probe B experiment and its confirmation of the frame dragging effect, tend to support.., or at least open the door to this kind of interpretation. If, in any model of the QV a physical object interacts with the QV to any degree, we are no longer dealing with a vacuum we can think of as Empty Space.., and we can no longer discount the possibility that that interaction has consequences, on either the QV or the physical object.
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
While as I mentioned aspects of and even perhaps the existence of a/the QV remains controversial, Unruh Radiation is generally accepted. While at classical velocities the impact of Unruh Radiation is generally insignificant to atomic stability, it is not unreasonable to expect that at relativistic velocities, the situation may be different.
Both the potential existence of Unruh Radiation and any interaction between a physical object and Spacetime, as suggested by the frame dragging effect, open the door to the potential that, relativistic velocities may result in the ionization of atomic structures.
All of this leads to, at least the potential that the idea that all things in motion tend to stay in motion may not be entirely accurate beyond the classical environments and conditions, that it has been proven.
On the issue of the 20-30% c comment, that came directly from a Stanford University researcher, in a discussion that had nothing to do with EMDrives. Aside from the fact that I am unaware of any physical object(s) we have observed/detected with relativistic velocities, (where objects are composed of intact atoms or even single atoms) I have no personal experience apart from the conversation mentioned on the issue.
But, that was not really the intent of my post. There are several theories of operation for an EMDrive, with variations, going around. Some could be interpreted as mutually exclusive... And yet much of the secondary discussion(s) seems to me to blur the lines between the differing fundamental New Physics required, by different theories. Without attempting to restate various theories of operation or my own inclinations on that topic, perhaps the following might clarify my original intent.
FIRST
If one were to accept that the quantum vacuum (QV) exists and in a manner that an EMDrive can interact with it, while that may provide a means to generate thrust, it would also require that the idea of empty space be set aside.., and that at greater than classical velocities the QV itself might result in an external resistance to the acceleration of the drive, independent of whatever is happening inside the drive to produce thrust... In some respects even the existence of an external gravitational field might have a similar result... No free kinetic energy machine...... But that also depends to some extent on exactly what one decides or determines the composition and dynamics of the QV is. There has been very little specific description and no real consensus even as to the existence of a QV. I personally tend toward the position the there is a QV, but the details would be an entirely different discussion.
It could be argued that a mutable or polarizable QV would result in Unruh Radiation being relativistically scalable in a manner that could result in the vaporization or ionization of an object accelerated to relativistic velocities.
SECOND
If instead of a mutable/polarizable QV one adheres to the idea that space is empty in a classically Newtonian sense and the limitations of special relativity, it could be argued that there would be no speed limit, perhaps not even the speed of light. But even introducing a gravitational field and GR could be argued as complicating external external conditions.
My earlier intent, badly presented, perhaps even now, was that much of the secondary discussion seems to be commingling concepts, theories and conditions that may be mutually exclusive.
As I mentioned I personally have come to believe that there is a QV, which is not dependent on the boundary conditions of an object. Though how an object interacts with the QV is dependent on those boundary conditions. No free energy.
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?
Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Its become apparent with DIY and professional lab testing that something is there and designers and theorists are struggling to get their minds around it. I think the worst thing that could happen is Mach Effect and EmDrive proponents take sides and battle one another. They should look for commonality and pursue designs as they see fit. If commonality is found, public sharing of this info would be critical to quicker advancement in advanced propulsion.
I guess what I am "preaching" about is collaboration rather than taking sides...if that makes sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter has been occurring too often.
Hi RFmwguy,
Has there been any talk about the MW resonance setting up a similar effect to cooper pairing in the photons? Just thinking if the standing waves were some how exhibiting fermionic tendancies it may have an associated degenerate pressure on the copper of the Frostrum. And therefore almost separate to the thermal affects. Given that copper is well within the 'anomalous' orbital configuration of 4d 3s overlap wondering if it might show some effect on overall depth penetration? Still wouldn't know how it would violate CoM but it's the only strange things I could even start to question.
Thanks
I've only a gut-feel for the theory, but in a nutshell, I believe "compressed" photons and possibly other less understood forms of EM energy somehow distort exceptionally small areas of space-time. I haven't pursued theory as part of my design work, but some intriguing aspects of the Casimir Effect appear to be related. Whether it is a pull or a push of inertia, I am uncertain.
Look at it this way, massless particles exert pressure then wink out of existence. This is one abridged theory of photons. The endplates could create a "difference condition". This apparent difference in itself could be a CoM/CoE violation related to the massless photons "disappearing" creating an imbalance and mother nature fills the gap with inertia.
As you can tell, I haven't spent much time developing a theory of operation and there are others who are betting their credentials on them. Me? I started with design, fabricate and test...theory is secondary. I have no ego or science community credentials to put at risk.
Whatever it is, its apparent to me that inertial impacts on devices using RF or Microwave energy was never considered in the past and some find it preposterous. I encourage those who think this way conduct an experiment to prove their theory that it cannot exist. The caveat being they construct a frustum using agreed-to methodology and designs which yielded promising results.
-
Thank you rfmwguy,
I do agree experimentation can trump the theory(I was a chemist that hit a problem and overturned it by proving accepted theory was wrong, it still fitted accepted theory after but approach was changed). If it works getting from A to B may be possible and theory follows. I'm a healthy sceptic however but optimistic. Do you mind me asking how much collaboration is going on behind scenes? No specifics needed just are you getting a feeling of things are getting polarised in good way?
I'm getting sense that critical mass on thinking is changing.
Thanks
-
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter
“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
-
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
-
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter
“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
There is a whole lot of other evidence of dark matter. I don't believe it's just about galactic rotations.
-
Hi rfmwguy,
With your gut feeling on cassimir effect, you believe that Unruh radiation could account? I mean exclusion in the tiny gap of all other wavelengths in universe? Such that external pressure on cassimir plates is greater externally than within? I do find that fascinating. And applying it to EM frequencies resonating within a fixed cavity doesn't necessary exclude enough EM wavelengths to produce thrust on scale observed. Coupling photons doesn't ever seem to occur in nature I'm aware of(or knoweable maybe singularities). Are inferometers now being employed in resonating cavities. Or are there examples we will become aware of that suggest space time distortions associated with photon resonance ?
Thanks again
-
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter
“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
There is a whole lot of other evidence of dark matter. I don't believe it's just about galactic rotations.
I am in the increasingly sceptic camp on dark matter.
-
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
-
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter
“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
There is a whole lot of other evidence of dark matter. I don't believe it's just about galactic rotations.
I am in the increasingly sceptic camp on dark matter.
As am I,
Our measurements are based of the parsec -parralex archseconds( basically stereoscopic viewing of distant objects). With the 1 ' specification that's about 10000 light years accurate distance calculation. As well as red shift.
Isn't expansion about 67 km/s per 1 M parsecs( think parsec = around 3.8 LY.
I know we all think Bosonic particles have no real effect on gravity - what if we are wrong?
Metric expansion isn't supposed to influence local frames of reference.
The universe is flooded with photons.
Thanx
-
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
People like to say that, that if you include the kinetic energy of the fuel before it burns, there is no paradox. Of course, but the problem is that no one can point to where all the extra energy was actually put in beyond the already burned fuel. In other words, it takes the same amount of energy for every spec of velocity gain, not more when it's going faster. So saying the kinetic energy of the fuel must be accounted for does not resolve the paradox, it magnifies it.
It's easy to calculate the speed the Emdrive or Cannae drive reach that point. You just need the acceleration and the power used for thrust and the mass. Set Power times time to kinetic energy. Substitute a*t for v and you get t=2*power/(mass* acceleration^2). In the Cannae Deep Space Probe, that works out to about 267 seconds! In the Shawyer Interstellar probe (29.6KW thruster, 8936 Kg mass, about 1m/s^2 acceleration) about 6.6 seconds. So failure would be known quickly.
-
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
People like to say that, that if you include the kinetic energy of the fuel before it burns, there is no paradox. Of course, but the problem is that no one can point to where all the extra energy was actually put in beyond the already burned fuel. In other words, it takes the same amount of energy for every spec of velocity gain, not more when it's going faster. So saying the kinetic energy of the fuel must be accounted for does not resolve the paradox, it magnifies it.
It's easy to calculate the speed the Emdrive or Cannae drive reach that point. You just need the acceleration and the power used for thrust and the mass. Set Power times time to kinetic energy. Substitute a*t for v and you get t=2*power/(mass* acceleration^2). In the Cannae Deep Space Probe, that works out to about 267 seconds! In the Shawyer Interstellar probe (29.6KW thruster, 8936 Kg mass, about 1m/s^2 acceleration) about 6.6 seconds. So failure would be known quickly.
Your argument about the traditional rocket is not correct. The main fallacy is that you did not count the fact that the higher the speed of the rocket is, the more energy the fuel has. This extra energy is stored as kinetic energy (exactly 1/2mV^2, on top of the chemical energy stored), which was provided by the already burn fuel. If you count that in, your paradox is resolved.
-
Thank you rfmwguy,
I do agree experimentation can trump the theory(I was a chemist that hit a problem and overturned it by proving accepted theory was wrong, it still fitted accepted theory after but approach was changed). If it works getting from A to B may be possible and theory follows. I'm a healthy sceptic however but optimistic. Do you mind me asking how much collaboration is going on behind scenes? No specifics needed just are you getting a feeling of things are getting polarised in good way?
I'm getting sense that critical mass on thinking is changing.
Thanks
I can only tell you of my personal collaboration, but not any specifics...as agreed upon. There is an EmDrive builders network in which data, techniques and plans are shared privately. All in the group have honored each other's commitment not to divulge anything discussed there publicly.
Its very open, but we all hold back a little info, especially when we are not convinced of its relevancy or accuracy.
Your instincts are correct. Critical mass is upon us. I think the various DIY efforts have helped bring emdrive out of the darkness a little sooner than planned (yes, I think its been known about/experimented with for years (no proof, just my humble conjecture).
There will still be organized resistance against it, made up of competing technology interests and those unwilling to accept there is something new they didn't predict nor understand. That can be very difficult for some to accept. From my humble DIY perspective, its real and should lead towards other discoveries.
My only advice is to be critical of Flying Car talk...nowhere do I have evidence this is anything other than an advanced (mN) space propulsion solution rivaling Ion Drive. FWIW
-
My only advice is to be critical of Flying Car talk...nowhere do I have evidence this is anything other than an advanced (mN) space propulsion solution rivaling Ion Drive. FWIW
I agree. All that talk about upcoming hyper-strong drives goes against the credibility and seriousness of the topic, regardless of how much we would like it to be true, because any discussion assuming it quickly devolves into science fiction daydreaming.
But mostly because there is no evidence of such a thing, not even Mr. Shawyer has come with any demonstration like that (or we wouldn't be fussing about minute forces).
As I said before here and in other forums: any device that is proven to exist and that has an efficiency above of a photon rocket is a revolution. That's the important aspect to prove.
Even if you can only get millinewtons per kilowatt from it, that's enough for changing physics and impacting all known space propulsion technologies.
-
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
People like to say that, that if you include the kinetic energy of the fuel before it burns, there is no paradox. Of course, but the problem is that no one can point to where all the extra energy was actually put in beyond the already burned fuel. In other words, it takes the same amount of energy for every spec of velocity gain, not more when it's going faster. So saying the kinetic energy of the fuel must be accounted for does not resolve the paradox, it magnifies it.
It's easy to calculate the speed the Emdrive or Cannae drive reach that point. You just need the acceleration and the power used for thrust and the mass. Set Power times time to kinetic energy. Substitute a*t for v and you get t=2*power/(mass* acceleration^2). In the Cannae Deep Space Probe, that works out to about 267 seconds! In the Shawyer Interstellar probe (29.6KW thruster, 8936 Kg mass, about 1m/s^2 acceleration) about 6.6 seconds. So failure would be known quickly.
Your argument about the traditional rocket is not correct. The main fallacy is that you did not count the fact that the higher the speed of the rocket is, the more energy the fuel has. This extra energy is stored as kinetic energy (exactly 1/2mV^2, on top of the chemical energy stored), which was provided by the already burn fuel. If you count that in, your paradox is resolved.
I thought I said that. My point is that happens naturally. You don't need to burn extra fuel to account for that. Each delta v requires the same burn, not more to account for the fact that future fuel is more effective. The reason we don't see more paradoxes with rockets is that they require so much mass that they run out before that point would be reached and they are so very inefficient so most kinetic energy is wasted.
Also, I don't consider the energy issue a paradox if you use the work-energy theorem. It's the mechanical power times the time that always equates to the kinetic energy change in every observer frame. So there is no paradox. There is just a mixing of energy from different frames that confuses people.
-
The reason we don't see more paradoxes with rockets is that they require so much mass that they run out before that point would be reached and they are so very inefficient so most kinetic energy is wasted.
Rockets are quite efficient at turning stored energy into kinetic energy. But it depends on what you mean by "efficiency". If we're talking the ratio of the energy stored in the propellant/fuel to the kinetic energy of the vehicle at burn-out, then rockets get a maximum efficiency of 0.63 for a mass-ratio of 4.91. That's a well known fact and it's pretty impressive efficiency compared to most other engines. The engine in your car converts about 11% of the energy in the fuel into kinetic energy thanks to all the friction and thermodynamic losses. Or, if you have a hybrid, it might be more like ~25%.
Of course you might be thinking of the kinetic energy tied up in *just* the payload, but that's not really a proper measure of efficiency, unless you have something more mass-efficient in mind, like a linear accelerator or similar electric drive. And, of course, stage rockets have to drop bits in order to get their mission velocity, but that's a whole other issue.
-
I can only tell you of my personal collaboration, but not any specifics...as agreed upon. There is an EmDrive builders network in which data, techniques and plans are shared privately. All in the group have honored each other's commitment not to divulge anything discussed there publicly.
Its very open, but we all hold back a little info, especially when we are not convinced of its relevancy or accuracy.
I understand why this happens but it is a loss to progress and scientific understanding to have groups go private/dark just to avoid caustic criticism. Others may also label it as a "distraction" to communicate their experiments/results as they happen but it's critical to do so. It's not easy to ignore or politely respond to some forms of criticism but I do believe it does benefit us as experimentalists to hear and respond to it. Avoiding it just leads to groups hoarding data, going down dead ends un-necessarily, and retarding the advancement of the field. Please consider being as open as possible with your experiments and data. You will no doubt be highly esteemed in the end if you do so.
-
I can only tell you of my personal collaboration, but not any specifics...as agreed upon. There is an EmDrive builders network in which data, techniques and plans are shared privately. All in the group have honored each other's commitment not to divulge anything discussed there publicly.
Its very open, but we all hold back a little info, especially when we are not convinced of its relevancy or accuracy.
I understand why this happens but it is a loss to progress and scientific understanding to have groups go private/dark just to avoid caustic criticism. Others may also label it as a "distraction" to communicate their experiments/results as they happen but it's critical to do so. It's not easy to ignore or politely respond to some forms of criticism but I do believe it does benefit us as experimentalists to hear and respond to it. Avoiding it just leads to groups hoarding data, going down dead ends un-necessarily, and retarding the advancement of the field. Please consider being as open as possible with your experiments and data. You will no doubt be highly esteemed in the end if you do so.
You probably need to view my EmDrive videos on the youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videos
Then my v-cast (at 25 min in): https://youtu.be/bXG3xqFUf3A
Recent test data here and http://reddit/r/qthruster
Think you'll find extreme transparency on my 2 year journey w/the emdrive
-
I have nearly completed a full 3d model and FEKO analysis of the Cannae drive tested in vacuum by EW. Mode TM010
https://youtu.be/9A8TAZWQ3Rw
-
You probably need to view my EmDrive videos on the youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videos
Then my v-cast (at 25 min in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXG3xqFUf3A
Recent test data here and http://reddit/r/qthruster
Think you'll find extreme transparency on my 2 year journey w/the emdrive
Oh yes...I haven't missed a second of it and I applaud what you, Seashells, Monomorphic and others are doing. I am simply responding to your remarks about private groups, holding back results until they are validated ( no need to do so if you are clear about their possible flaws ) and the slight pullback of reporting by Seashells for perhaps similar reasons. Ok....stepping back into the shadows.
-
There will still be organized resistance against it, made up of competing technology interests and those unwilling to accept there is something new they didn't predict nor understand. That can be very difficult for some to accept. From my humble DIY perspective, its real and should lead towards other discoveries.
You know Dave, the list of people here who have opened minds to possibilities and new thought is pretty long. Thanks for doing your part with an openness that is, quite frankly, new to science and the world. Open collaboration, to all who care to participate.
Thank you, very much.
-
Hi all,
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/
Just got home (very tired) from the Space Studies Institute Advanced Propulsion Workshop in Estes Park Colorado where it not only met my high exceptions but, exceeded them by several magnitudes.
More tomorrow....
My Best,
Shell
-
Note: I am cutting out much of the context from these quotes, but that is why the link back to the original post is there on this forum. I am just including enough to communicate what I am part of the original posts I am responding to.
In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum.
This is only true if it doesn't expel anything mass or have a (massive) to push against. The other non-EMDrive examples you gave like an RC airplane aren't relevant because they have a medium (air).
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so.
No, this isn't a problem, because energy obviously changes when you change reference frames. This is not the paradox I and others here are referring to.
As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
This is using light as a medium for 2 object to push against each other, again no issue, because the object at each end of the recycling is effectively the exhaust of the other one. Energy gets pulled out of the beam through redshift, so it needs continuous (probably increasing) input power as well.
The reason we don't see more paradoxes with rockets is that they require so much mass that they run out before that point would be reached and they are so very inefficient so most kinetic energy is wasted.
No, there are no paradoxes with rockets seen, because there are none. You can do all of the calculations for a rocket in a reference frame going at 0.9 c relative to the starting velocity of the rocket, and you would not find any imbalance paradox.
Also, I don't consider the energy issue a paradox if you use the work-energy theorem. It's the mechanical power times the time that always equates to the kinetic energy change in every observer frame. So there is no paradox. There is just a mixing of energy from different frames that confuses people.
Again, the different frames thing is not the issue. Let's see if I can explain this simply (I wish I could find that old post)
Ignoring relativity briefly:
Spacecraft with initial mass of 10, moving at velocity 100 = 100,000 (kinetic) energy
Lets say it has 2 (equal mass) parts connected with a compressed spring storing 4000 energy.
Upon release (and constraining to 1 dimension) One half would be moving at speed 120 and have 72000 energy, and the other would end up with speed 80, and 32,000 energy. The "exhaust" has to be included, otherwise the half that started having only 50,000 energy, couldn't end up with 72,000 energy from a potential energy store of 4000.
If there wasn't exhaust Conservation of Energy (CoE) would be broken.
Relativity actually creates a tiny loophole: Because in relativity E2 = (m*c2)2 + (p*c)2 momentum can be gained without exhaust that has (rest) mass. This only works up to a momentum/energy ratio of 1/c, which not coincidentally is the energy/momentum ratio that special relativity enforces on all massless particles. This includes gravitons/gravity waves. (Technically this is only known for sure in the small spatial curvature limit, because it is hard to define momentum and energy in full general relativity.)
If the EMDrive works (exceeding the above ratio), and does not push against something (e.g. degradable quantum vacuum, pushing against other massive bodies, etc.) it is a free energy machine. Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
-
Hi all,
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/
Just got home (very tired) from the Space Studies Institute Advanced Propulsion Workshop in Estes Park Colorado where it not only met my high exceptions but, exceeded them by several magnitudes.
More tomorrow....
My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,
must say I'm really supersized to see how small the work group actually was....
so.. (expectations)³ huh? Can't wait to hear more...
And seriously.. a double rainbow? :o
how cool is that to make a "goodbye" pic...
-
I understand why this happens but it is a loss to progress and scientific understanding to have groups go private/dark just to avoid caustic criticism. Others may also label it as a "distraction" to communicate their experiments/results as they happen but it's critical to do so. It's not easy to ignore or politely respond to some forms of criticism but I do believe it does benefit us as experimentalists to hear and respond to it. Avoiding it just leads to groups hoarding data, going down dead ends un-necessarily, and retarding the advancement of the field. Please consider being as open as possible with your experiments and data. You will no doubt be highly esteemed in the end if you do so.
Regardless of what rfmwguy has posted about “holding data back”, both he and monomorphic have been prolific in their data sharing. TheTraveler has been forthcoming to an extent, but no real data has been posted by him. In his defense, it seems he is still waiting on the equipment he desires to perform the more conclusive experiments he has designed. SeaShells is taking a very different approach. She has shared no data (to my knowledge), though she has shared much of her design and processes. I cannot fault her for her approach, even if it does not make me overly happy personally.
In 1989 Fleishman and Pons published data that turned the world on its head. (They knew it was not ready to be published, because their methodology was not nailed down, but someone else leaked it for them.) It was a very unfortunate turn of events because they had not experimentally determined a proper methodology. This one event has forever (or at least forever since) changed the way scientists view publishing their information. What has happened since then in that field is completely amazing (especially the last 15 years or so), but very few know (or are willing to admit that they know) about the mountains of data that exist. This is the fallout of too quickly published data without a co-published properly repeatable experiment. People aren’t even allowed to say the words “cold fusion” without being instantly dismissed as idiots. It is imo the lowest point of our history of science since the 16th century.
SeaShells apparently does not want to follow such a pattern. I do not know her at all personally, but from reading this forum every day for the past 2? years, it seems she is a very careful and accomplished engineer. I respect her decisions, because the media is obviously following this thread. I hope she is not TOO cautious, and recognizes that the pattern of data sharing that monomorphic and rfmwguy have shown has not been overly problematic, but it is what it is, and again, I have come to have complete respect for what she has shared of her methodologies, and of course, her decisions.
We are all impatient. For me, it has been a couple years of waiting in the shadows. I have sufficient education I could attempt these experiments myself, but I do not have the luxury of excess time, and it would take up much of what I do have to do it justice. More importantly, I doubt I could outperform our current list of DIYers, NASA EW, and whoever else has taken on this project, so I remain an interested secondary (impatient but respectful) observer.
I suggest to everyone; appreciate what is happening here. It is remarkable. I have never seen a collaboration in such a medium that is actually effective in getting to the bottom of a potentially earth shattering mystery (or the opposite, as the case may be). Appreciate what we are given. It is more than I could have ever dreamed possible outside of a group of people I know personally. Don’t be afraid to ask for more, but don’t be upset if it doesn’t happen. Just appreciate, that is all.
Slyver
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
As I calculated a few pages ago, the 0.67C (relatively to the earth referential) mentionned in the Shawyer peer-rewieved paper means a Kinetic Energy of 3.1191599*10^20 joules
Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules
So, following Shawyer, at the expanse of 6.311*10^13 Joules a spaceship can get 3.1191599* 10^20 joules of Kinetic Energy. We get massive free energy !
-
Hi all,
http://ssi.org/ssi-woodward-propulsion-workshop/
Just got home (very tired) from the Space Studies Institute Advanced Propulsion Workshop in Estes Park Colorado where it not only met my high exceptions but, exceeded them by several magnitudes.
More tomorrow....
My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,
must say I'm really supersized to see how small the work group actually was....
so.. (expectations)³ huh? Can't wait to hear more...
And seriously.. a double rainbow? :o
how cool is that to make a "goodbye" pic...
Think that rainbow was strange? You're not the only one. The photo doesn't do it justice, it hurt your eyes to look at it, it was incredibly bright.
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_rainbow.jpg)
If you and others don't mind. I'm going to let others more highly qualified present the breakthrough propulsion details along with the papers, summaries and videos that were done. It was three days of very serious discussions on the Woodward Mach effect, NASA's findings on the EMDrive and a few other ideas thrown in. Nothing was taken for granted.
What I learned was a deeper understanding of what I need to do with my own testing and evaluating of this drive in finer detail, removing error sources, and quantifying the ones I can't and putting the data in context. Presented by people who wrote the book on it. It was all good.
And when driving back down the mountains into Denver the very first song on the radio was Rocket Man. You figure that one out. :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LX7WrHCaUA
My Best,
Shell
-
Shell,
Good to hear you had a productive time.
-
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
Pick one from an infinite number. Each will give you a different value. Which is correct or maybe none are?
One thing we do know is the amount of energy that the ship's electrical generator would produce to indirectly provide constant force to generate a constant acceleration of the ship's mass according to A = F/M.
-
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
Pick one from an infinite number. Each will give you a different value. Which is correct or maybe none are?
In that case, why claim that the Emdrive does not violate CoE ?
In the earth reference frame, the Shawyer article shows a clear violation of CoE. But Shawyer claims that Conservation of Energy is still true. He should assume his emdrive as a free energy device.
Also, if you assume that different referential gives different results, why are you writing about Kinetic Energy ? When you write about Kinetic Energy, you need to have a reference frame. If a reference frame is not something relevant to the way it is working, do not speak of Kinetic Energy (bottom of Fig 12) :)
-
...He should assume his emdrive as a free energy device...
The work done by the electrical energy supply to accelerate the mass of the ship does not generate free energy. It is just work done on the ship's mass and most of it is turned into heat energy. There is no energy gain, no free energy.
-
...He should assume his emdrive as a free energy device...
The work done by the electrical energy supply to accelerate the mass of the ship does not generate free energy. It is just work done on the ship's mass and most of it is turned into heat energy. There is no energy gain, no free energy.
Unless I am mistaken (it wouldn't be the first time :-[), relative velocity and kinetic energy doesn't care about how much waste heat you have; an indefinite acceleration period and greater than photon rocket thrust (eventually) works out to more kinetic energy than input power. Still, in my opinion, this is a problem that merely needs to be resolved in theoretical frameworks (assuming EM drive works), not an ultimate proof that EM drives don't work.
-
I understand why this happens but it is a loss to progress and scientific understanding to have groups go private/dark just to avoid caustic criticism. Others may also label it as a "distraction" to communicate their experiments/results as they happen but it's critical to do so. It's not easy to ignore or politely respond to some forms of criticism but I do believe it does benefit us as experimentalists to hear and respond to it. Avoiding it just leads to groups hoarding data, going down dead ends un-necessarily, and retarding the advancement of the field. Please consider being as open as possible with your experiments and data. You will no doubt be highly esteemed in the end if you do so.
(...)
I suggest to everyone; appreciate what is happening here. It is remarkable. I have never seen a collaboration in such a medium that is actually effective in getting to the bottom of a potentially earth shattering mystery (or the opposite, as the case may be). Appreciate what we are given. It is more than I could have ever dreamed possible outside of a group of people I know personally. Don’t be afraid to ask for more, but don’t be upset if it doesn’t happen. Just appreciate, that is all.
Slyver
I think this is the quote of the week. Very nicely said. Being outside academic circles and well beyond my Purdue days, I brought in no reservations about reporting as I saw it. Jamie and I have similar attitudes about letting the Internet be used for open collaboration and discussion on scientific projects. EmDrive is one of many Citizen Scientist projects going on right now. I don't think its the most radical, but it certainly is the most interesting project I've read about.
As we shall read in December, there are many things we don't yet comprehend and did not anticipate. To me, that's what science is all about and what defines a legacy. I think we all are a small part of something very big: The true genesis of Advanced Space Propulsion.
-
Better view of the E-fields in TM010 Cannae drive. Last video wasn't very clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTeZSVsL-I
E&H Fields:
https://youtu.be/HO2fRU8fEW0
-
...He should assume his emdrive as a free energy device...
The work done by the electrical energy supply to accelerate the mass of the ship does not generate free energy. It is just work done on the ship's mass and most of it is turned into heat energy. There is no energy gain, no free energy.
Unless I am mistaken (it wouldn't be the first time :-[), relative velocity and kinetic energy doesn't care about how much waste heat you have; an indefinite acceleration period and greater than photon rocket thrust (eventually) works out to more kinetic energy than input power. Still, in my opinion, this is a problem that merely needs to be resolved in theoretical frameworks (assuming EM drive works), not an ultimate proof that EM drives don't work.
Totally agree for relative velocity and kinetic energy. I agree also It is not a proof that the Emdrive don't work. There are at least 4 possibilities (probably there are many others)
1 : Emdrive don't work. No new physic needed.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
3 : Emdrive works, gives constant acceleration at constant power, but CoE is still not violated, because it is a way of stealing Energy to something else. Mutable Quantum Vacuum for example. New physics needed.
4 : Emdrive works at constant acceleration at constant power, and violates CoE. New physics needed.
I think that most of us would find that 2 or 3 are more probable than 4.
Shawyer tells that he does no needs no physics, so he is not in 2 or 3. He is in 4.
Shawyer's calculus give a speed of 0.67C after 10 years for a 10 ton ship. It makes 3.1191599*10^20 joules in an earth referential. It is around what the entire world used in 2001.
The Energy provided to the emdrive by the 200kwe nuclear Power plant during the 10 years of operation would be 6.311*10^13 Joules
I detailed the calculus in a preceding message.
If a ship do not steal energy to something else, and comes with more Kinetic Energy that it has used of Electricity, CoE is violated.
-
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_rainbow.jpg)
Is Professor Woodward on the photo ?
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
As I calculated a few pages ago, the 0.67C (relatively to the earth referential) mentionned in the Shawyer peer-rewieved paper means a Kinetic Energy of 3.1191599*10^20 joules
Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules
So, following Shawyer, at the expanse of 6.311*10^13 Joules a spaceship can get 3.1191599* 10^20 joules of Kinetic Energy. We get massive free energy !
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
-
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_rainbow.jpg)
Is Professor Woodward on the photo ?
No, he isn't. It was a bit of a walk over a small ditch and rough ground to get to the open field and sadly he is getting up there in years. Although, he may have been with a group of others who headed out to relieve themselves of to much coffee or water after 3 hours of intense presentation and debate.
Shell
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
Actually, at relativistic speeds, acceleration is reduced so it's no longer invariant among different frames.
-
In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.
A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume.
From Noether's theorem, each conservation law is associated with a symmetry in the underlying physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
The basic conservation laws are some of the strongest laws we know of governing the actions of systems and particles in our universe and are not thrown out the window when considering the actions of EM propulsion. They don't negate the data we have seen regarding the drives. They need to be used as a guide within the framework of physics in what maybe happening.
While at the workshop one presentation hit home by a exceptional engineer who has been working in the fields of unusual phenomena, debunking extraordinary claims for 30 years. He made me proud to be called an engineer. He presented (I would guess) over a hundred processes who's actions could produce not only false positives, but also increase the error windows in the testing phase. Try as I may I could only add a couple odd ball actions to the list. The real gold in his presentation relates to the fact, that if you take into account and quantify or negate these list of actions you will be left with solid data and have your test data be taken much more seriously. We all deserve that, not only believers but skeptics.
I'll try to relist these in the days to come.
Shell
-
Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame.
If I understand it correctly, this is not the case. Let's say you're inside the ship at t0, and you burn some fuel for a very short time (total energy spent = E). As a result, your speed is now V1, and the speed of the exhaust is V2 in the opposite direction. The total kinetic energy is now m1v1^2/2 + m2v2^2/2, which equals the amount of energy spent (E). Now let's calculate this in a different ref frame, in which the ship is already moving at speed U. The total kinetic energy prior to the boost is E0 = (m1+m2)U^2/2. After the boost, the total kinetic energy will be E1 = m1(u+v1)^2/2 + m2(u-v2)^2/2. If you calculate the difference between E1 and E0 and take into account that m1v1 = m2v2 (CoM), you will get exactly E, i.e. the energy spent by burning the fuel does not depend on the reference frame, even though the kinetic energy before and after obviously does.
-
I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
-
I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
-
Better view of the E-fields in TM010 Cannae drive. Last video wasn't very clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTeZSVsL-I
E&H Fields:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO2fRU8fEW0
My goodness you do fine work. Maybe it could make much more sense if you could animate a full cycle to see the poynting vectors fluctuate through a complete cycle and visually see if there are any asymmetries created with the dielectric plug in the antenna end.
I did send you the location of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop at the YMCA in Estes Park Co, but I guess you didn't get it in time to attend. You would have been quite welcome there being a drive tester. Plus, you could have met face to face with; Dr. Rodal, Todd, Paul March, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Hiedi Fern, Dr. Martin Tajmar along with many other other physicists, engineers and experts in propulsion. Also met the fine SSI.org group that has tirelessly worked through the years for advancement in space. http://ssi.org/about/history/ It is worth a read.
My Best,
Shell
-
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
-
No, he isn't. It was a bit of a walk over a small ditch and rough ground to get to the open field and sadly he is getting up there in years. Although, he may have been with a group of others who headed out to relieve themselves of to much coffee or water after 3 hours of intense presentation and debate.
Shell
Thank you Shell.
-
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
This is a rabbit-hole, meaning photons, while only partially understood are assumed not to violate CoE/CoM. The duality of photons violates our known physics, as does particle entanglement at a distance. So I still offer that the EmDrive solution will involve a new twist on the assumptions of the photon...which remains an enigma. Just my humble opinion however...
-
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
I think the last statement has been put to rest multiple times in this thread alone. It does not violate CoE/CoM. If it did it wouldn't work.
I should have been more specific. I meant, "EmDrive, however, if works as described by Mr. Shawyer, violates CoE/CoM." The new theories presented by the Dr.'s are beyond my ability to digest.
-
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
I think the last statement has been put to rest multiple times in this thread alone. It does not violate CoE/CoM. If it did it wouldn't work.
I should have been more specific. I meant, "EmDrive, however, if works as described by Mr. Shawyer, violates CoE/CoM." The new theories presented by the Dr.'s are beyond my ability to digest.
Thank you for that clarification.
I rather like the theory that the drive is stealing from distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon. Just as a probe steals from a planet in a gravitational assist.
-
Maybe it could make much more sense if you could animate a full cycle to see the poynting vectors fluctuate through a complete cycle and visually see if there are any asymmetries created with the dielectric plug in the antenna end.
I did send you the location of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop at the YMCA in Estes Park Co, but I guess you didn't get it in time to attend.
I can do a time domain analysis, but that requires quite a bit of computation. Due to the complex geometry of the cannae drive, it has quite a few triangles in the 3d mesh - which also adds dramatically to compute time.
I received the location of the conference in time, but I was traveling with a sick spouse, and had non-refundable plane tickets back to Atlanta at 9:00 am Monday. Had I learned about the conference a couple of weeks earlier, I could have changed my schedule.
-
I can do a time domain analysis, but that requires quite a bit of computation. Due to the complex geometry of the cannae drive, it has quite a few triangles in the 3d mesh - which also adds dramatically to compute time.
Forgive me if someone else already raised this possibility, but would it be feasible to use some sort of cloud based computational resource to speed up render times? Something like Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/ (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/)) maybe? It looks like they have a "Free Teir" (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/)) that would give you 750 hours of per month for 1 year...
-
Dr. Rodal, Todd, Paul March, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Hiedi Fern, Dr. Martin Tajmar along with many other other physicists, engineers and experts in propulsion.
Ahhhhh... To have been a fly on the wall during those discussion sessions!
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
It will take me a bit to describe this.
One can work out the percentage of energy exchanged in an instant upon impact using conservation of energy and momentum with two massive objects. If the photon has an effective mass that can possibly change, then the ratio of energy exchanged upon impact may change also. Photons, because of their very small effective mass, are very inefficient at exchanging energy upon impact. 100% efficient exchange of energy between two elastic objects happens when they are the same mass, but photons have a very small mass compared to ours.
Photon recycling by repeated collisions can make this energy exchange more efficient and can be observed in photon recycling laser propulsion but this is an open system where two objects are both accelerating in opposite directions. In such a system energy is drained more effectively from the light by Doppler-shifting.
It may be possible, inside a closed system or cavity, to modify the mass of light on one side of a cavity. This likely implies modifying the vacuum itself. If the mass of light in a closed cavity stays the same then the energy exchanged with a collision on one side of a cavity is transferred back to the photon upon the collision with the other side of the cavity. However, if the mass of light is heavier on one side of the cavity, then more energy is always transferred to one side of the cavity than the other. Also, the more times this light recycles and the greater the difference in mass of the light, then the more effectively energy is drained from the light in the cavity by Doppler-shifting.
Now this is a big if, because I don't know this is really happening, but I suspect it may be possible.
How momentum is being conserved in such a cavity is possibly that the higher index vacuum that is modifying the mass of light is experiencing a back reaction upon this light changing in mass. Experiments have been done in water and such a back reaction has been observed as well as greater impulses from light in water on a mirror so drawing such a parallel seems plausible to me.
This is where the answer to your question comes in:
Now lets look at the CMB which appears to give us an absolute reference frame for the maximum speed of light (hope I am right on this). At light speed this should appear for the observer to flatten into a pancake I would guess. Light approaching one from behind should appear severely red-shifted and I would assume reduced in energy or ability to provide impulse while light approaching from ahead should appear blue-shifted and provide more impulse. So a moving cavity would observe the light inside to provide less impulse forward by red-shifting and greater opposition by blue-shifting. I would suppose that this behavior of the light in the cavity would put a limit on the maximum velocity achievable when the two forces reach equilibrium.
This is what I suspect may possibly be going on but I am in no way implying this IS what is going on. However, it helped me understand why Q might be important and possible limitations of such a device.
-
Dr. Rodal, Todd, Paul March, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Hiedi Fern, Dr. Martin Tajmar along with many other other physicists, engineers and experts in propulsion.
Ahhhhh... To have been a fly on the wall during those discussion sessions!
I was told they will be putting it up on their website for all to access.
They videotaped the workshop presentations including the Q and A after each speaker. It will take some time to make clean edits for regular breaks and such. That totals to hours of presentations, you can now be a fly in your own home. ;) You have to love the internet and thank SSi.org taking the time to make this breakthrough propulsion workshop available to the world.
While I didn't present this time I was vocal. ;)
My Best,
Shell
PS: A picture of Dr. Rodal presenting.
-
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_rainbow.jpg)
Is Professor Woodward on the photo ?
Regrettably no. He walks with two canes now and couldn't move quickly enough over the broken ground to get out to where the camera was located. We have a more complete group photo that will be posted next week, but without the double rainbow.
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
As I calculated a few pages ago, the 0.67C (relatively to the earth referential) mentionned in the Shawyer peer-rewieved paper means a Kinetic Energy of 3.1191599*10^20 joules
Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules
So, following Shawyer, at the expanse of 6.311*10^13 Joules a spaceship can get 3.1191599* 10^20 joules of Kinetic Energy. We get massive free energy !
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Yes, you do get massive free energy. Gilbertdrive's calculations were all done in one reference frame. The device starts out with a battery containing a certain amount of energy. At the end the battery is drained and the device has way more kinetic energy than it started with. Under a theory like Shawyer's where the device does not interact with anything else, this violates CoE.
Also, thermal waste like TheTraveller mentioned just makes it worse, because that thermal energy that radiated away is more energy at the end, on the side of the equation that already has extra energy.
And before you mention relativity, you should be aware that might make it worse. If the 10 years of operation were in the earth frame (This is most likely, but I'd have to check the paper to be sure) then since the device experiences time dilation, the starting energy needed in the battery would actually be lower. (Remember the starting energy of the battery is with the device at rest in the earth-frame, the same frame the final kinetic energy is measured in.)
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
As I calculated a few pages ago, the 0.67C (relatively to the earth referential) mentionned in the Shawyer peer-rewieved paper means a Kinetic Energy of 3.1191599*10^20 joules
Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules
So, following Shawyer, at the expanse of 6.311*10^13 Joules a spaceship can get 3.1191599* 10^20 joules of Kinetic Energy. We get massive free energy !
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Correct.
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
-
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Correct.
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
-
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
This thread might help you find out what's wrong with his arguments... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
There is no single reference frame "matters". All intertial reference frames matter. If an explanation/theory works in one intertial frame and breaks down in another, it is most likely wrong.
-
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
This thread might help you find out what's wrong with his arguments... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
There is no single frame of reference "that matters". All frames of reference matter.
Only the ship's frame matters as it alters ship's velocity, relative to a desired destination, with a constant relationship between work done on the ship's mass and velocity.
To the ship, accelerating at a constant rate, there is no velocity, just acceleration.
-
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
This thread might help you find out what's wrong with his arguments... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
There is no single frame of reference "that matters". All frames of reference matter.
Only the ship's frame matters as it alters ship's velocity, relative to a desired destination, with a constant relationship between work done on the ship's mass and velocity.
To the ship, accelerating at a constant rate, there is no velocity, just acceleration.
Earth frame matters too. Because if a ship, after a dozen or so years of acceleration, hits the Earth,the Earth will break into a pile of asteroids. But I think there still can be math errors with the ship frame. Let me see whether I can be lucky.
-
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
This thread might help you find out what's wrong with his arguments... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
There is no single frame of reference "that matters". All frames of reference matter.
Only the ship's frame matters as it alters ship's velocity, relative to a desired destination, with a constant relationship between work done on the ship's mass and velocity.
To the ship, accelerating at a constant rate, there is no velocity, just acceleration.
Earth frame matters too. Because if a ship, after a dozen or so years of acceleration, hits the Earth,the Earth will break into a pile of asteroids. But I think there still can be math errors with the ship frame. Let me see whether I can be lucky.
The Earth's frame only matters if an inbound ship needs to match velocity.
However the work needed to be done on the ship's mass to alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame, stays constant and that is the only effect that is important.
-
...
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
All inertial (constant velocity) frames matter, because physics is the same in all inertial frames. This is the fundamental principle of relativity. If you want to jump between frames, then you have to start being careful with transformations, and generally you can't compare energy between frames. Conservation of energy as normally discussed requires you to be talking about a single inertial reference frame. Being in the accelerating frame of the ship requires you to account for non-inertial effects, just like how the Coriolis effect appears if you are in a rotating frame.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
I hadn't researched Woodward's theories too thoroughly before, but I had the impression he was a general competent physicist, who was poking for (unlikely) loopholes in general relativity. After reading that paper I no longer have that impression.
After performing a step of just using the transitive property of equality (if a = b and b = c, then a = c), he says:
Now we have done something stupid and wrong.
It is possible he is referring to the first step in that sequence, where the figure of merit is defined, but that figure of merit comes straight out of theories such as Shawyer's. If that is wrong then the theory that it comes from must be wrong.
he then remarks:
But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this
calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything?
Simple, the step with defining the figure of merit only applies to METs and the like. Making a single assumption when every other step is valid, and ending up in a contradiction is a common way to disprove the assumption. That is what is done here, but Woodward tries to twist this inside out.
The last paragraph of the paper attempts to show the "correct" way of doing this. As part of that he says:
We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation. So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.
He then tries to get around this limit by continuously jumping into the current rest frame of the device. This causes him to be comparing energy between reference frames which is not valid as Bob012345 has pointed out.
The only thing this paper has destroyed for me is the thought that Woodward has any credibility. Unless this paper is some kind of bad joke, or test to see who can find them flaws in it.
-
....
All inertial (constant velocity) frames matter, because physics is the same in all inertial frames. This is the fundamental principle of relativity. If you want to jump between frames, then you have to start being careful with transformations, and generally you can't compare energy between frames. Conservation of energy as normally discussed requires you to be talking about a single inertial reference frame. Being in the accelerating frame of the ship requires you to account for non-inertial effects, just like how the Coriolis effect appears if you are in a rotating frame.
....
Without comment on any of the various theories, the above quote describes the basis of the difficulty I have had with most of the CoM and to a lesser but not insignificant extent CoE debate.
As long as one is testing an EMDrive in a lab the arguments are entirely valid because it is tied to the inertial frame of reference of the lab. But, I have not seen any claim that an experiment has been allowed to run long enough to test the claim of constant uniform acceleration (which seems to me to be projecting a conclusion based a flawed theory of operation), so it is a mute point.
The real issue begins, if a functional EMDrive is put into space (the vacuum) and allowed to accelerate for an extended period of time. But then the only significant frame of reference is that of the EMDrive's or spaceship's frame which is accelerating, not inertial. Since kinetic energy is relative, to inertial frames, it should not be an issue, for an object in an accelerating frame... Unless it runs into an immovable object in its path.
I don't believe that once the drive or any spaceship which has moved sufficiently out of a gravity well that its inertial velocity is greater than escape velocity, the frame of reference of the gravity well's center of mass can be used as the drives frame of reference for purposes of any additional acceleration(s) either continuous or intermittent. The drive or spaceship becomes the only valid frame.
The only real issue I see is whether there is a limiting velocity for a massive object that is less than the speed of light... Special relativity says there is and it is the speed of light.., and everyone know where the energy requirements for acceleration in that case is... But it has only been tested and confirmed relative to an inertial lab frame of reference. At least with any degree of certainty.
If one of these drives is proven to work, I guess we will find out.
-
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
This thread might help you find out what's wrong with his arguments... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
There is no single frame of reference "that matters". All frames of reference matter.
Only the ship's frame matters as it alters ship's velocity, relative to a desired destination, with a constant relationship between work done on the ship's mass and velocity.
To the ship, accelerating at a constant rate, there is no velocity, just acceleration.
Earth frame matters too. Because if a ship, after a dozen or so years of acceleration, hits the Earth,the Earth will break into a pile of asteroids. But I think there still can be math errors with the ship frame. Let me see whether I can be lucky.
The Earth's frame only matters if an inbound ship needs to match velocity.
However the work needed to be done on the ship's mass to alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame, stays constant and that is the only effect that is important.
If the Em-ship take a turn at Alpha Centuri, than come back in the solar system with the speed of 0,67C, in less than a century, it comes back with far more energy that it's own generator has provided during this time. It is Overunity.
As meberbs has written :
All inertial (constant velocity) frames matter, because physics is the same in all inertial frames. This is the fundamental principle of relativity.
The CoE needs to be verified in an heliocentric referential. At least if you do not take into account other stars :)
Anyway, Shawyer has mentionned clearly in "Emdrive Basis" that the acceleration was supposed to decrease as the Kinetic Energy was increasing. He just omitted to give a referential. But it can not be the ship itself, because the Kinetic Energy would always be zero. In Shayer theory, the Q factor is supposed to decrease with the speed (in a non given reference frame)
But in his paper, he forgot to take that into account when he calculated the speed of 0,67C.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
Maybe I should have been more explicit. I reformulate.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, so the Emdrive push against this reference frame as a car is pushing on the road, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
Also When a car accelerates on a road at constant power, it's acceleration decrease as the inverse of it's speed in the road reference frame.
This point is very important. It is a question of work.
The work done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement (not distance) s in the direction of the force is the product
W = F s {\displaystyle W=Fs} {\displaystyle W=Fs}.
For example, if a force of 10 newtons (F = 10 N) acts along a point that travels 2 metres (s = 2 m), then it does the work W = (10 N)(2 m) = 20 N m = 20 J. This is approximately the work done lifting a 1 kg weight from ground to over a person's head against the force of gravity. Notice that the work is doubled either by lifting twice the weight the same distance or by lifting the same weight twice the distance.
Work is closely related to energy. The work-energy principle states that an increase in the kinetic energy of a rigid body is caused by an equal amount of positive work done on the body by the resultant force acting on that body. Conversely, a decrease in kinetic energy is caused by an equal amount of negative work done by the resultant force.
From Newton's second law, it can be shown that work on a free (no fields), rigid (no internal degrees of freedom) body, is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the velocity and rotation of that body.
Since the work is proportional to the displacement, it means that if the ship is moving 2 times faster, and the same force applied, the work is also *2. So, it needs two times more power to apply the same force on the car. This needs a force that apply on the referential of the road. This relation is not true in any other referential. If my car is driving on the roof of a moving train, the fact that the acceleration is divided by 2 when the speed in multiplied by 2. is true in the referential of the train. It is not true in the Earth referential. In the Earth referential, the car will get more Kinetic Energy that is spent internal Energy. Because it is true that Kinetic Energy depends on the referential. But CoE is not violated, because, in the earth referential, the train has been slow down by the car, so it has less Kinetic Energy, and the total Kinetic Energy of the system still satisfy CoE.
So, what is important here are the 2 points :
1 : When A push against B to get speed, using a constant power, it's acceleration is inversely proportional to the speed of A relatively to B.
2 : It is not true in other referential, but it the system A+B is taken into account, CoE still verified for any referential.
-
Each delta v requires the same burn, not more to account for the fact that future fuel is more effective. The reason we don't see more paradoxes with rockets is that they require so much mass that they run out before that point would be reached and they are so very inefficient so most kinetic energy is wasted.
Also, I don't consider the energy issue a paradox if you use the work-energy theorem. It's the mechanical power times the time that always equates to the kinetic energy change in every observer frame. So there is no paradox. There is just a mixing of energy from different frames that confuses people.
I think I have the right solution for this paradox that completes the answer that Meberbs did.
I shall first formulate the paradox a very clear way.
For classical rockets, unlike a car pushing against a road, the Delta V is the same for each burn.
So, in the earth reference frame, the faster the rocket is, the more Kinetic Energy gained, for the same amount of energy spent.
So, at a certain speed, the rocket gains more Kinetic Energy in the earth reference frame that the energy it has spent.
My solution of the paradox is.
Yes, it is true that in earth referential the rocket gains more Kinetic Energy that it has spent. But the rocket is not alone. The propellant that was expulsed at the opposite direction has now less Kinetic Energy in a earth reference frame. And the faster the rocket was, the more Kinetic Energy it has lost. It compensates the fact that the ship has gained more Kinetic Energy.
If I look the total Kinetic Energy of the system rocket + propellant, from an earth reference Frame, CoE will always be satisfied. In the earth point of view, the rocket has stolen Kinetic Energy to it's propellant, and there is no paradox.
In fact several messages already explicited that, but maybe another formulation can help. Tellmeagain and Meberbs have already made very good explanations.
-
...
On the ship A = F/M rules. The energy / work required to be done on the constant mass of the ship to effect velocity change never varies. The ship doesn't care what some other frame calculates as the necessary energy to cause velocity change.
-
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
I already replied to this point a few minutes ago, but maybe I missed the essential, so I come back to this point.
If a car accelerates by pushing on a road, it's acceleration decrease as the inverse of the speed in the reference frame of the road.
It is not true in other referentials, not because the acceleration would be different, but because the speed is different. So the relation is not true anymore, but the acceleration is almost the same.
In say almost, because in fact, the planet does not have an infinite mass, so the road and the entire planet is accelerating a little in the opposite direction. But with a big planet like the earth, it is negligeable.
The acceleration will not be much different in different reference frames as long as speeds are non relativist.
-
...
On the ship A = F/M rules. The energy / work required to be done on the constant mass of the ship to effect velocity change never varies. The ship doesn't care what some other frame calculates as the necessary energy to cause velocity change.
If only the ship cares, why does Shawyer speaks about increase of Kinetic Energy. In the ship referential, Kinetic energy is zero...
-
...
The Earth's frame only matters if an inbound ship needs to match velocity.
However the work needed to be done on the ship's mass to alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame, stays constant and that is the only effect that is important.
You have to chose one reference frame. "alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame," if you chose the ship's frame the velocity is always zero and there is no relative velocity. If you use the ship's frame of reference you are expending energy and not seeing any increase in the kinetic energy. What you should do is to consider the frame when the ship is at rest; ie: before any acceleration occurs. Then calculate the final kinetic energy added after the acceleration has ended wrt to this rest frame. For any reactionless drive the kinetic energy will eventually become larger than the energy used to accelerate the spacecraft. This is the CoE conundrum all reactionless drives have. Using the wrong reference frame just introduces another error. The equations will never balance with this error so you still have the CoE conundrum and sometimes in the opposite sense.
-
...
On the ship A = F/M rules. The energy / work required to be done on the constant mass of the ship to effect velocity change never varies. The ship doesn't care what some other frame calculates as the necessary energy to cause velocity change.
If only the ship cares, why does Shawyer speaks about increase of Kinetic Energy. In the ship referential, Kinetic energy is zero...
Why will some external frame alter the work needed to be done on the ship's mass by the EmDrive altering A= F/M? The work needed to be done on the ship's mass, to alter velocity, is constant, independent of any external frame.
This is almost like the twin paradox where only the local frame is important and frame to frame revelance is variable.
-
...
The Earth's frame only matters if an inbound ship needs to match velocity.
However the work needed to be done on the ship's mass to alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame, stays constant and that is the only effect that is important.
You have to chose one reference frame. "alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame," if you chose the ship's frame the velocity is always zero and there is no relative velocity. That would require a second frame. What you should do is to consider the frame when the ship is at rest; ie: before any acceleration occurs. Then calculate the final kinetic energy added after the acceleration has ended wrt to this rest frame. For any reactionless drive the kinetic energy will eventually become larger than the energy used to accelerate the spacecraft. This is the CoE conundrum all reactionless drives have. Using 2 reference frames incorrectly as you have done just introduces another error. However the equations will never balance with this error so you still have the CoE conundrum.
I added the bolding. Hope you don't mind.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't a distinction be made is between reactionless and propellantless. Several of the theories on the table are propellantless, but NOT reactionless. Woodward's MET theory interacts with all mass in the universe, pushing and pulling it's way across the skein using a rapidly moving, minutely varying mass. White's QVPT theory interacts with, and uses as "virtual propellant" the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, making it somewhat akin to both a traditional ion drive and a magnetohydrodynamic drive (like the submarine drive in the Hunt for Red October).
I haven't followed Shawyer's theory as closely as the others, but I did watch one of the videos that Traveller posted awhile back, which Roger narrated and which seemed to me to detail a form of direct momentum transfer from the photons into the frustum. From the CoE perspective, this theory seems to me to be the most suspect. Though, if it works, I think it might satisfy Conservation of Momentum (someone with more physics training than I would have to explain why or why not), which I find an intriguing result worth further study in and of itself. And, this may sound a little crazy, but it is entirely possible in my mind that he could be holding something back and/or intentionally (possibly at the behest of certain organizations) spreading disinformation.
-
...
The Earth's frame only matters if an inbound ship needs to match velocity.
However the work needed to be done on the ship's mass to alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame, stays constant and that is the only effect that is important.
You have to chose one reference frame. "alter the relative velocity to 0, in the ship's frame," if you chose the ship's frame the velocity is always zero and there is no relative velocity. If you use the ship's frame of reference you are expending energy and not seeing any increase in the kinetic energy. What you should do is to consider the frame when the ship is at rest; ie: before any acceleration occurs. Then calculate the final kinetic energy added after the acceleration has ended wrt to this rest frame. For any reactionless drive the kinetic energy will eventually become larger than the energy used to accelerate the spacecraft. This is the CoE conundrum all reactionless drives have. Using the wrong reference frame just introduces another error. The equations will never balance with this error so you still have the CoE conundrum and sometimes in the opposite sense.
There is no error when only the ship's frame is considered. In that frame A = F/M rules and a constant amount of work on the ship's mass results in a constant acceleration and velocity change.
A EmDrive powered ship, desiring to match a destination velocity, needs only to engage a known amount of work on the ship's mass to effect zero relative velocity.
External KE frames are not involved. Only relative velocity differences between the ship and destination are important and those velocity differences relate to the necessary work needed to be done on the ship's mass to effect the desired velocity change.
-
The basic conservation laws are some of the strongest laws we know of governing the actions of systems and particles in our universe and are not thrown out the window when considering the actions of EM propulsion. They don't negate the data we have seen regarding the drives. They need to be used as a guide within the framework of physics in what maybe happening.
Shell recently stated, in no uncertain terms, that the conservation laws are not "thrown out the window when considering the actions of EM propulsion," which to me suggests that she and most of the attendees of the recent workshop feel that there is no violation taking place in the measurement results to date. So, rather than arguing about how it could never work because it violates CoE, maybe we should be trying to brainstorm possible interactions that would allow us to think about the EM drive as operating via a reaction of some sort.
It's easy to shoot down ideas. It's a little more difficult to come up with new ones. I know it's cliché, but we have to think outside of the box here (and yes, I am familiar with the 9 dot puzzle and was able to solve it without help).
-
...
On the ship A = F/M rules. The energy / work required to be done on the constant mass of the ship to effect velocity change never varies. The ship doesn't care what some other frame calculates as the necessary energy to cause velocity change.
If only the ship cares, why does Shawyer speaks about increase of Kinetic Energy. In the ship referential, Kinetic energy is zero...
Why will some external frame alter the work needed to be done on the ship's mass by the EmDrive altering A= F/M? The work needed to be done on the ship's mass, to alter velocity, is constant, independent of any external frame.
This is almost like the twin paradox where only the local frame is important and frame to frame revelance is variable.
So, your answer means that Shawyer was wrong about citing the increase of Kinetic Energy, and the fact that Q was decreasing when the speed and the Kinetic energy was increasing ? Have I correctly understood ?
Also, it was not question of altering A=F/M. It was question of a decreasing acceleration AND decreasing force. Still A=F/M.
-
A number of recent posts are addressing violation of conservation of momentum and violation of conservation of energy again. The posts have been addressing the propellant-less drive as it would be a closed-system and ignore any interaction with external fields If one would address a gravity assist maneuver with similar arguments, one would arrive at the obviously incorrect conclusion that there is a huge violation of conservation of energy and momentum, as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Gravitational_slingshot.svg/200px-Gravitational_slingshot.svg.png)
Obviously to properly consider conservation of mass and energy for a gravity assist maneuver, the spacecraft's effects on the planet must also be taken into consideration. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet's speed negligibly small.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Grav_slingshot_diag.svg/400px-Grav_slingshot_diag.svg.png)
-
If I look the total Kinetic Energy of the system rocket + propellant, from an earth reference Frame, CoE will always be satisfied. In the earth point of view, the rocket has stolen Kinetic Energy to it's propellant, and there is no paradox.
Good explanation...
This is also generally true for a photon rocket - in the Earth ref frame, the rocket gains more and more kinetic energy after emitting each photon as it accelerates, but it has to lose a bit of its mass with each photon (which is being converted into the energy of the photon), which offsets this difference. In other words, the mass lost by the rocket plays the role of the propellant - it was moving with the rocket before a boost (and contributing to its kinetic energy), and then it gets converted into the energy of the photons. I hope I got this right...
I would think that if EmDrive does produce thrust, there is an mechanism to be discovered by which it loses a bit of its mass as it accelerates and emits the lost energy into space in some form or another (minus the difference needed to compensate for the kinetic energy loss equivalent to that of a propellant).
-
A number of recent posts are addressing violation of conservation of momentum and violation of conservation of energy again. The posts have been addressing the propellant-less drive as it would be a closed-system and ignore any interaction with external fields If one would address a gravity assist maneuver with similar arguments, one would arrive at the obviously incorrect conclusion that there is a huge violation of conservation of energy and momentum, as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing. Obviously to properly consider conservation of mass and energy for a gravity assist maneuver, the spacecraft's effects on the planet must also be taken into consideration. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet's speed negligibly small.
Thanks for this clarification! I would just like to point out that a gravity assist maneuver would not work in interstellar space (or would have a much smaller effect), while EmDrive is presumed to produce acceleration that does not depend on its position in the universe. Or am I missing something?
-
A number of recent posts are addressing violation of conservation of momentum and violation of conservation of energy again. The posts have been addressing the propellant-less drive as it would be a closed-system and ignore any interaction with external fields If one would address a gravity assist maneuver with similar arguments, one would arrive at the obviously incorrect conclusion that there is a huge violation of conservation of energy and momentum, as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing. Obviously to properly consider conservation of mass and energy for a gravity assist maneuver, the spacecraft's effects on the planet must also be taken into consideration. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet's speed negligibly small.
Thanks for this clarification! I would just like to point out that a gravity assist maneuver would not work in interstellar space (or would have a much smaller effect), while EmDrive is presumed to produce acceleration that does not depend on its position in the universe. Or am I missing something?
Consider, for example, the variable inertia effect of Mach/Sciama/Woodward, which is based on General Relativity. Under this theory, the inertial Mach Effect is due to gravitational effects from the rest of the universe's "external shell" (Sciama stated that instantaneous inertial forces in all accelerating objects are produced by a primordial gravity-based inertial radiative field created by distant cosmic matter and propagating both forwards and backwards in time at light speed). Therefore it should work in interstellar space as well. It should work wherever there is inertia. Also, such considerations flow naturally from Hoyle Narlikar's (HN) gravitational theory. (*)
______________________
(*) Hoyle was well known to insist on a steady-state universe, and he insisted in including the creation field to make the universe steady. If you remove the creation field (or C-field) from the original Hoyle Narlikar theory, the theory is no longer steady state and agrees with WMAP data.
J. V. Narlikar; N. C. Rana (1983). "Cosmic microwave background spectrum in the Hoyle-Narlikar cosmology". Physics Letters A. 99 (2-3): 75–76. Bibcode:1983PhLA...99...75N. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(83)90927-1.
http://repository.iucaa.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/11007/1590/1/130A_1983.pdf
J.V. Narlikar; R.G. Vishwakarma; Amir Hajian; Tarun Souradeep; G. Burbidge; F. Hoyle (2002). "Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation interpreted within the framework of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology". Astrophysical Journal. 585: 1–11. arXiv:astro-ph/0211036. Bibcode:2003ApJ...585....1N. doi:10.1086/345928.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0211036.pdf
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidgeii, R.G. Vishwakarmaiii , (2008) Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 28(2-3) · January 2008
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.2965.pdf
-
Welcome back doc.
Without you and the other knowledgeable posters here, I'm afraid we would be stuck in 1st year pre-grad physics. ;D
-
Off topic - http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-hold-media-call-on-evidence-of-surprising-activity-on-europa - NASA calls on conference about the Europa moon on 26th. I presume it will be some interesting news. - Its not aliens just to make that clear ;D
"Astronomers will present results from a unique Europa observing campaign that resulted in surprising evidence of activity that may be related to the presence of a subsurface ocean on Europa"
Lets hope it will support a reason to go there. Europa is my personal favorite in our solar system :) .
Edit: Link fix
-
...
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
All inertial (constant velocity) frames matter, because physics is the same in all inertial frames. This is the fundamental principle of relativity. If you want to jump between frames, then you have to start being careful with transformations, and generally you can't compare energy between frames. Conservation of energy as normally discussed requires you to be talking about a single inertial reference frame. Being in the accelerating frame of the ship requires you to account for non-inertial effects, just like how the Coriolis effect appears if you are in a rotating frame.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
I hadn't researched Woodward's theories too thoroughly before, but I had the impression he was a general competent physicist, who was poking for (unlikely) loopholes in general relativity. After reading that paper I no longer have that impression.
After performing a step of just using the transitive property of equality (if a = b and b = c, then a = c), he says:
Now we have done something stupid and wrong.
It is possible he is referring to the first step in that sequence, where the figure of merit is defined, but that figure of merit comes straight out of theories such as Shawyer's. If that is wrong then the theory that it comes from must be wrong.
he then remarks:
But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this
calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything?
Simple, the step with defining the figure of merit only applies to METs and the like. Making a single assumption when every other step is valid, and ending up in a contradiction is a common way to disprove the assumption. That is what is done here, but Woodward tries to twist this inside out.
The last paragraph of the paper attempts to show the "correct" way of doing this. As part of that he says:
We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation. So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.
He then tries to get around this limit by continuously jumping into the current rest frame of the device. This causes him to be comparing energy between reference frames which is not valid as Bob012345 has pointed out.
The only thing this paper has destroyed for me is the thought that Woodward has any credibility. Unless this paper is some kind of bad joke, or test to see who can find them flaws in it.
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms. As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
Also, note what he does with the work energy theorem. In every frame, force times distance equals the change in kinetic energy, no energy issues here. Notice how the distance grows with time squared, and one can reconfigure to so it's the same as velocity squared. The work grows as velocity squared as does kinetic energy! That's why it works. There is no paradox in reality. Accept it, it's natures gift.
P.S. If someone still insists it can't work because 'momentum isn't conserved' assume it is, and assume however it is, the ship is just borrowing additional kinetic energy from the 'exhaust' of the universe just as it is in a rocket.
-
Welcome back doc.
Without you and the other knowledgeable posters here, I'm afraid we would be stuck in 1st year pre-grad physics. ;D
Seconded good to see you back Doctor Rodal.
-
Each delta v requires the same burn, not more to account for the fact that future fuel is more effective. The reason we don't see more paradoxes with rockets is that they require so much mass that they run out before that point would be reached and they are so very inefficient so most kinetic energy is wasted.
Also, I don't consider the energy issue a paradox if you use the work-energy theorem. It's the mechanical power times the time that always equates to the kinetic energy change in every observer frame. So there is no paradox. There is just a mixing of energy from different frames that confuses people.
I think I have the right solution for this paradox that completes the answer that Meberbs did.
I shall first formulate the paradox a very clear way.
For classical rockets, unlike a car pushing against a road, the Delta V is the same for each burn.
So, in the earth reference frame, the faster the rocket is, the more Kinetic Energy gained, for the same amount of energy spent.
So, at a certain speed, the rocket gains more Kinetic Energy in the earth reference frame that the energy it has spent.
My solution of the paradox is.
Yes, it is true that in earth referential the rocket gains more Kinetic Energy that it has spent. But the rocket is not alone. The propellant that was expulsed at the opposite direction has now less Kinetic Energy in a earth reference frame. And the faster the rocket was, the more Kinetic Energy it has lost. It compensates the fact that the ship has gained more Kinetic Energy.
If I look the total Kinetic Energy of the system rocket + propellant, from an earth reference Frame, CoE will always be satisfied. In the earth point of view, the rocket has stolen Kinetic Energy to it's propellant, and there is no paradox.
In fact several messages already explicited that, but maybe another formulation can help. Tellmeagain and Meberbs have already made very good explanations.
Everything you said about the rocket is true, however, if you let the rocket burn long enough (unfortunately, you can't because of practical mass limits), even accounting the exhaust energy balance, you would run into the same problem as with the EmDrive.
Regarding the car for constant power input, acceleration is constant up to a point, then decreases because losses are proportional to velocity. If you could re-guage at the turning point, as Woodward suggests his device can in space, it would remain accelerating.
-
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.
As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.
P.S. If someone still insists it can't work because 'momentum isn't conserved' assume it is, and assume however it is, the ship is just borrowing additional kinetic energy from the 'exhaust' of the universe just as it is in a rocket.
The argument isn't that it can't work because momentum is not conserved, the argument is that certain theories (Shawyer's) are wrong because they don't allow momentum or energy to be conserved.
Everything you said about the rocket is true, however, if you let the rocket burn long enough (unfortunately, you can't because of practical mass limits), even accounting the exhaust energy balance, you would run into the same problem as with the EmDrive.
The rocket doesn't have the problem exactly because it stops working when it runs out of fuel to borrow energy from. Any rocket you can imagine, even the most efficient possible (matter-antimatter reactor with a laser exhaust) will not result in any paradox, energy will always be perfectly balanced. Yet for the proposed explanations of the EMDrive, where it does not have exhaust of any form including a medium to push against, it is easy to find examples that break CoE.
-
There is no error when only the ship's frame is considered. In that frame A = F/M rules and a constant amount of work on the ship's mass results in a constant acceleration and velocity change.
A EmDrive powered ship, desiring to match a destination velocity, needs only to engage a known amount of work on the ship's mass to effect zero relative velocity.
External KE frames are not involved. Only relative velocity differences between the ship and destination are important and those velocity differences relate to the necessary work needed to be done on the ship's mass to effect the desired velocity change.
You have a mistaken understanding of the concept of frames of reference. Considering the hypothetical case where you are inside a space capsule that is travelling at 10,000 km/Hr directly away from the Sun. If you had no instruments that would tell you what your speed was wrt to the Sun, or even a window to look out of, you would not know if you were stationary wrt to the Sun or moving. You would have the spacecraft reference frame. If the space capsule was being accelerated you would not know if the force you were experiencing was gravity or due to an acceleration because you would have no means of measuring the change in velocity. The velocity and the ΔV in the space capsule's reference frame are both 0. So in the space capsule reference frame the change in kinetic energy (KE = M*ΔV2/2 = 0 because ΔV=0). Your earlier example that used the reference frame of the EM-Drive is flawed because the kinetic energy will always be zero even as the EM-Drive consumes large amounts of power. You have to use an external fixed frame of reference. When you do that CoE is violated and of course momentum is not conserved. This is true for any reactionless drive. I don't consider planetary assist to be reactionless propulsion because the planet is pulling the spacecraft and momentum is tranferred using gravity.
-
.... When you do that CoE is violated and of course momentum is not conserved. This is true for any reactionless drive. I don't consider planetary assist to be reactionless propulsion because the planet is pulling the spacecraft and momentum is tranferred using gravity.
At the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" (that mathematically and physically) explains the EM Drive as a capacitor, where:
* Surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall (between the two end plates)
* electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
* Mach/Woodward effect is triggered by Lorentz force from surface currents on the conic wall
* acceleration of RF cavity as due to the variation of Electro Magnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer
A polymer insert placed asymmetrically in the cavity results in greater asymmetry, while decreasing Q. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors. The model can explain acceleration with and without the polymer insert (to a more significant or less significant extent).
As the Mach/Woodward effect can be derived straight from the fully covariant nonlinear Hoyle Narlikar gravitational theory or it can also be obtained from linearized General Relativity it is really as much of a gravitational effect as gravity assist. The difference being that gravity assist is something that people are now familiar with (since it was first used for interplanetary flight by the Mariner 10 in the mid-70's) and the Mach/Woodward effect is something that people are normally unfamiliar with (because time-dependent terms in General Relativity are usually ignored).
Gravity assist flight of a spacecraft is an open system where momentum is transferred by gravity to spaceship and so is the Mach/Woodward effect a gravitational effect. Both of them are explained by General Relativity. If somebody explains the acceleration of an EM Drive based on a gravitational effect (the Mach/Woodward effect), it would be incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy solely based on the spaceship momentum while ignoring the effect of gravity.
Of course, nobody nowadays will write about "overunity" of gravity assist (as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing, if one ignores gravity) because it is evident that gravity assist is ... gravity-assisted. ;)
Similarly, the Mach/Woodward effect drive perhaps should be renamed "Mach Effect Gravity Assist" (MEGA) drive, to make it more obvious to the readers that the Mach Effect is a gravitational effect, and thus it would be completely incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy without taking into account the gravitational effect.
-
This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
-
At the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" (that mathematically and physically) explains the EM Drive as a capacitor, where:
* Surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall (between the two end plates)
* electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
* Mach/Woodward effect is triggered by Lorentz force from surface currents on the conic wall
* acceleration of RF cavity as due to the variation of Electro Magnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer
I'm sensing a link between the idea of EM drives as a capacitor, TheTraveler's anomalous impulse that he's had difficulty reproducing, and Seashell's (paraphrased from memory) "cyclic high impulse jerk..." (https://i.sli.mg/ZTDjXn.gif)
-
P.S. I saw HMXHMX say the videographers have to do some editing. Honestly, given the nirvana I imagine going on at this conference I would rather watch those videos unedited.
Not really. There were many times when the room turned into a fur-ball of multiple conversations all at once. Interruptions, everyone running out to see a rainbow, projector issues, dinner plans, etc. These parts of the recording would be useless to everyone and would make the resulting video much longer than it needs to be. We were in there for 3 whole days, I'd estimate there are probably at least 24 hours of video and audio to sift though and piece together into a coherent presentation. It would be a waste of the viewers time to listen to that garble.
-
...
On the ship A = F/M rules. The energy / work required to be done on the constant mass of the ship to effect velocity change never varies. The ship doesn't care what some other frame calculates as the necessary energy to cause velocity change.
Sorry to interrupt, but the above is a wrong interpretation of the Newtons law. There F is an external force acting on M. In a closed system there is no acceleration. Its mass center awlays moves with constant velocity. Basic physics.
-
This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587948#msg1587948). The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
-
I would suggest the existing nsf thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
Is the proper locale for Mach effect discussions so the emdrive threads remain on topic. 😼
-
Discussion of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, as well as possible acceleration of the EM Drive , as explained by the Mach effect of course best belongs in the EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications thread, instead of other threads. It is plainly obvious that one does not need to start a thread on "conservation of momentum" to discuss conservation of momentum of the EM Drive. Ditto for "conservation of energy" of the EM Drive. Ditto one does not need to start a thread on "Lorentz forces" to discuss Lorentzian forces on the EM Drive and for countless other discussions of the EM Drive ;D
And it is also obvious that if there would be an existing thread titled "Propellant-less Electromagnetic Propulsion", it would be best to discuss electromagnetic issues of the EM Drive in this thread than in another possibly existing one that may be addressing other types of electric propulsion (like electromagnetic tethers).
The emphasis of this thread has been very well stated already by D_Dom, in the first page of this thread, and we might as well repeat it to clear up any confusion:
This is a thread - Thread 8 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.
The thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
is devoted to the Woodward type experiments with piezoelectric/electrostrictive (usually PZT) stacks at much lower frequencies (~35 KHz) than what is being discussed here: an electromagnetic resonance in a cavity at ~2 GHz (orders of magnitude higher frequency).
-
.... When you do that CoE is violated and of course momentum is not conserved. This is true for any reactionless drive. I don't consider planetary assist to be reactionless propulsion because the planet is pulling the spacecraft and momentum is tranferred using gravity.
At the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" (that mathematically and physically) explains the EM Drive as a capacitor, where:
* Surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall (between the two end plates)
* electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
* Mach/Woodward effect is triggered by Lorentz force from surface currents on the conic wall
* acceleration of RF cavity as due to the variation of Electro Magnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer
A polymer insert placed asymmetrically in the cavity results in greater asymmetry, while decreasing Q. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors. The model can explain acceleration with and without the polymer insert (to a more significant or less significant extent).
As the Mach/Woodward effect can be derived straight from the fully covariant nonlinear Hoyle Narlikar gravitational theory or it can also be obtained from linearized General Relativity it is really as much of a gravitational effect as gravity assist. The difference being that gravity assist is something that people are now familiar with (since it was first used for interplanetary flight by the Mariner 10 in the mid-70's) and the Mach/Woodward effect is something that people are normally unfamiliar with (because time-dependent terms in General Relativity are usually ignored).
Gravity assist flight of a spacecraft is an open system where momentum is transferred by gravity to spaceship and so is the Mach/Woodward effect a gravitational effect. Both of them are explained by General Relativity. If somebody explains the acceleration of an EM Drive based on a gravitational effect (the Mach/Woodward effect), it would be incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy solely based on the spaceship momentum while ignoring the effect of gravity.
Of course, nobody nowadays will write about "overunity" of gravity assist (as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing, if one ignores gravity) because it is evident that gravity assist is ... gravity-assisted. ;)
Similarly, the Mach/Woodward effect drive perhaps should be renamed "Mach Effect Gravity Assist" (MEGA) drive, to make it more obvious to the readers that the Mach Effect is a gravitational effect, and thus it would be completely incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy without taking into account the gravitational effect.
I will look for that talk when the video becomes available. However my first reaction to this idea that a cavity can act like a capaciter is to ask whoever makes that claim to look at the boundary conditions. The inside of the cavity is a conductor so any em field at that interface will have a high current, low voltage node. There are RF topologies that do act like capacitors. They are usually at the end of a 1/4λ driven conductor, typically an antenna, and sometimes have rounded flat surfaces. At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
-
I will look for that talk when the video becomes available. However my first reaction to this idea that a cavity can act like a capaciter is to ask whoever makes that claim to look at the boundary conditions. The inside of the cavity is a conductor so any em field at that interface will have a high current, low voltage node. There are RF topologies that do act like capacitors. They are usually at the end of a 1/4λ driven conductor, typically an antenna, and sometimes have rounded flat surfaces. At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
-
...
I will look for that talk when the video becomes available. However my first reaction to this idea that a cavity can act like a capaciter is to ask whoever makes that claim to look at the boundary conditions. The inside of the cavity is a conductor so any em field at that interface will have a high current, low voltage node. There are RF topologies that do act like capacitors. They are usually at the end of a 1/4λ driven conductor, typically an antenna, and sometimes have rounded flat surfaces. At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
We have to wait for permission from the author to post the presentation (or more preferable for the mathematical paper). The boundary conditions are of course taken into account.
A piezoelectric crystal in a piezoelectric transducer away from resonance can most roughly be modeled also as a capacitor. Why? Because impedance (away from resonance) goes down with frequency. Of course to take into account resonance, you have to add an inductor and a resistor, as a minimal model, and so does Montillet, in his paper.
For example, the classical model for a piezoelectric crystal is that of a main capacitor connected in parallel to 1) a resistor, 2) another capacitor, and 3) an inductance. See the Van Dycke model and many circuit models by Mason.
(http://www.foi.se/surfbiotech/tt/img00014.gif)
Now, more to the point, here are circuit models used by LINAC School for RF resonant cavities:
(http://images.slideplayer.com/13/3902729/slides/slide_77.jpg)
And here is the model by Thomas Jefferson Lab
(http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6379503/slides/slide_16.jpg)
And here is the type of model shown by Montillet in his presentation:
(http://www.knowlescapacitors.com/Image%20Library//Dilabs/English/GlobalNavigation/Products/Cavity%20Resontors/Resonator-Equivilent-Circuit.JPG)The equivalent circuit of the Single Frequency Cavity Resonator (SFCR)
Of course - we all know - that actual cavities have an infinite number of eigenvalues and eigenmodes, but for conceptual understanding is well accepted that in proximity of a given known eigenmode one can conceptualize the behavior as such a simple circuit to understand what is going on.
And by the way, Montillet only discusses equivalent circuit models to facilitate understanding of the differential equations involved.
Of course, since Montillet's discussion involves evanescent waves, Montillet treatment in his paper is mathematical and not based on equivalent circuits ;)
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
By the way, Todd's presentation was excellent and very well received :)
There was strong interest in it, and was resonant with other points of view.
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
I would put this in a more uncertain terms.
In a superconducting cavity, the skin depth is not zero. In case of superconductor: skin depth δ must be replaced with London penetration depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_equations). Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Since the reason for superconductivity in a material is quite complex, naive extrapolations to the effectiveness of a superconducting EM Drive cannot and should not be based on just extrapolating results obtained from copper cavities based on "Q" quality factor scaling. (As some experimenters may have initially hoped) :)
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
I would put this in a more uncertain terms.
In a superconducting cavity, the skin depth is not zero. In case of superconductor: skin depth δ must be replaced with London penetration depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_equations). Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Since the reason for superconductivity in a material is quite complex, naive extrapolations to the effectiveness of a superconducting EM Drive cannot and should not be based on just extrapolating results obtained from copper cavities based on "Q" quality factor scaling. (As some experimenters may have initially hoped) :)
It would be interesting if the big end were superconducting and the rest was not.
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
I would put this in a more uncertain terms.
In a superconducting cavity, the skin depth is not zero. In case of superconductor: skin depth δ must be replaced with London penetration depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_equations). Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Since the reason for superconductivity in a material is quite complex, naive extrapolations to the effectiveness of a superconducting EM Drive cannot and should not be based on just extrapolating results obtained from copper cavities based on "Q" quality factor scaling. (As some experimenters may have initially hoped) :)
It would be interesting if the big end were superconducting and the rest was not.
Todd, sometimes you hurt my brain with your insight.
I've taken the weekend off to sit in a bubbling hot springs tub (birthday present) and unwind.
Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling"
. I'll be looking forward to reading the paper when I get back home to a proper computer. It was nearly impossible to hear him speak on skype.
I'm glad someone took my ramblings seriously on the evanescent wave functions and the blending of the Mach effect and other theories.
You all have a good weekend.
My Best,
Shell
-
...I'm glad someone took my ramblings seriously on the evanescent wave functions and the blending of the Mach effect and other theories.
;)
-
.... When you do that CoE is violated and of course momentum is not conserved. This is true for any reactionless drive. I don't consider planetary assist to be reactionless propulsion because the planet is pulling the spacecraft and momentum is tranferred using gravity.
At the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" (that mathematically and physically) explains the EM Drive as a capacitor, where:
* Surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall (between the two end plates)
* electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
* Mach/Woodward effect is triggered by Lorentz force from surface currents on the conic wall
* acceleration of RF cavity as due to the variation of Electro Magnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer
A polymer insert placed asymmetrically in the cavity results in greater asymmetry, while decreasing Q. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors. The model can explain acceleration with and without the polymer insert (to a more significant or less significant extent).
As the Mach/Woodward effect can be derived straight from the fully covariant nonlinear Hoyle Narlikar gravitational theory or it can also be obtained from linearized General Relativity it is really as much of a gravitational effect as gravity assist. The difference being that gravity assist is something that people are now familiar with (since it was first used for interplanetary flight by the Mariner 10 in the mid-70's) and the Mach/Woodward effect is something that people are normally unfamiliar with (because time-dependent terms in General Relativity are usually ignored).
Gravity assist flight of a spacecraft is an open system where momentum is transferred by gravity to spaceship and so is the Mach/Woodward effect a gravitational effect. Both of them are explained by General Relativity. If somebody explains the acceleration of an EM Drive based on a gravitational effect (the Mach/Woodward effect), it would be incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy solely based on the spaceship momentum while ignoring the effect of gravity.
Of course, nobody nowadays will write about "overunity" of gravity assist (as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing, if one ignores gravity) because it is evident that gravity assist is ... gravity-assisted. ;)
Similarly, the Mach/Woodward effect drive perhaps should be renamed "Mach Effect Gravity Assist" (MEGA) drive, to make it more obvious to the readers that the Mach Effect is a gravitational effect, and thus it would be completely incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy without taking into account the gravitational effect.
Very interesting.
It think it is important to notice again clearly that the recent developpements about constant thrust for constant imput power and overunity were not for the aim of telling that the Em-effect was impossible; nor to reject experimental results. It was about several things.
1 : All reported experiments are at zero speed relatively to the earth, or at low speeds comparated to what is needed for space travel. So there is no experimental evidence about the comportement at high speeds relatively to earth.
2 : The Overunity argument was mentionned in the context of theories where the emdrive was not stealing Energy to anything. Shaywer and the Traveller do not pretend that the emdrive is stealing energy to something else.
When I (and some others) gave the argument or overunity, we had some answers like :
The Traveller : It does not matter since in the accelerating referential of the ship the Kinetic Energy is always zero, so no problem.
Or some others : There are Kinetic Energy conudrum even with classical rockets, when more Kinetic Energy is gained that chemical energy was spent, so we gain energy, but it does not violate CoE.
That was about this type of answers that my messages were.
Some assumed "an Emship get more Kinetic energy than it spent of electricity, because it is stealing energy to something else"
It is perfect for me. I already listed several possible cases, I just modified my own citation to make it more explicit.
Totally agree for relative velocity and kinetic energy. I agree also It is not a proof that the Emdrive don't work. There are at least 4 possibilities (probably there are many others)
1 : Emdrive doesn't work. No new physic needed.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive has a way of pushing against this reference frame. It does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed in the reference frame it is pushing against. New physics needed.
3 : Emdrive works, gives constant acceleration at constant power, but CoE is still not violated, because it is a way of stealing Energy to something else. Mutable Quantum Vacuum for example, or via gravity. New physics needed.
4 : Emdrive works at constant acceleration at constant power, without stealing energy to anything else. It violates CoE. New physics needed.
Also, again, at the attention of The Diyers, especially RFMWguy and SeeShells
All the argumentation that was given recently by me, Meberbs, Tellmeagain, Wicoe, was about the way the emdrive could comport in space, and how, if it is working like announced by Shawyer in his peer-rewieved publication, getting 0,67C in 10 years, it would violates CoE. It was not about your experiments, since your experiments are at low or zero speed in an earth referential. It does not means that the Emdrive did not work. It was not about that. It was about theory.
I still find interesting to differenciate theories about the Emdrive that violates CoE from the theory that does not violate CoE.
To come back to your message, Dr Rodal, if the frustrum is explained as a capacitor, does it mean that the thrust could be a Biefeld-Brown effect ? It would be very sad.
-
Discussion of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, as well as possible acceleration of the EM Drive , as explained by the Mach effect of course best belongs in the EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications thread, instead of other threads. It is plainly obvious that one does not need to start a thread on "conservation of momentum" to discuss conservation of momentum of the EM Drive. Ditto for "conservation of energy" of the EM Drive. Ditto one does not need to start a thread on "Lorentz forces" to discuss Lorentzian forces on the EM Drive and for countless other discussions of the EM Drive ;D
And it is also obvious that if there would be an existing thread titled "Propellant-less Electromagnetic Propulsion", it would be best to discuss electromagnetic issues of the EM Drive in this thread than in another possibly existing one that may be addressing other types of electric propulsion (like electromagnetic tethers).
The emphasis of this thread has been very well stated already by D_Dom, in the first page of this thread, and we might as well repeat it to clear up any confusion:
This is a thread - Thread 8 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.
The thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
is devoted to the Woodward type experiments with piezoelectric/electrostrictive (usually PZT) stacks at much lower frequencies (~35 KHz) than what is being discussed here: an electromagnetic resonance in a cavity at ~2 GHz (orders of magnitude higher frequency).
Delineating competitive theories and hardware is critical for the readership imho especially for science media whom are following emdrive closely. "Closed" RF frustum cavities are the emdrive. Cannae is not and neither is Woodward's Mach effect nor nassikas. Trying to blur the lines seems disingenuous as these 8 threads have been emdrive from day 1.
Coe/com can apply anywhere and is a well discussed subtopic here. My vote has always been towards staying on topic rather than attempting to broaden an otherwise large topic. Emdrive is already a massive thread series, no need to boost it with Mach effect, nassikasn or cannae.
Like you, I'm just a part time poster here with my own point of view. Nsf staff can decide if renaming or broadening emdrive is the best thing to do. 😀
-
.... When you do that CoE is violated and of course momentum is not conserved. This is true for any reactionless drive. I don't consider planetary assist to be reactionless propulsion because the planet is pulling the spacecraft and momentum is tranferred using gravity.
At the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" (that mathematically and physically) explains the EM Drive as a capacitor, where:
* Surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall (between the two end plates)
* electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
* Mach/Woodward effect is triggered by Lorentz force from surface currents on the conic wall
* acceleration of RF cavity as due to the variation of Electro Magnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer
A polymer insert placed asymmetrically in the cavity results in greater asymmetry, while decreasing Q. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors. The model can explain acceleration with and without the polymer insert (to a more significant or less significant extent).
As the Mach/Woodward effect can be derived straight from the fully covariant nonlinear Hoyle Narlikar gravitational theory or it can also be obtained from linearized General Relativity it is really as much of a gravitational effect as gravity assist. The difference being that gravity assist is something that people are now familiar with (since it was first used for interplanetary flight by the Mariner 10 in the mid-70's) and the Mach/Woodward effect is something that people are normally unfamiliar with (because time-dependent terms in General Relativity are usually ignored).
Gravity assist flight of a spacecraft is an open system where momentum is transferred by gravity to spaceship and so is the Mach/Woodward effect a gravitational effect. Both of them are explained by General Relativity. If somebody explains the acceleration of an EM Drive based on a gravitational effect (the Mach/Woodward effect), it would be incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy solely based on the spaceship momentum while ignoring the effect of gravity.
Of course, nobody nowadays will write about "overunity" of gravity assist (as the spaceship involved in a sling shot maneuver apparently gains velocity out of nothing, if one ignores gravity) because it is evident that gravity assist is ... gravity-assisted. ;)
Similarly, the Mach/Woodward effect drive perhaps should be renamed "Mach Effect Gravity Assist" (MEGA) drive, to make it more obvious to the readers that the Mach Effect is a gravitational effect, and thus it would be completely incorrect to address conservation of momentum and energy without taking into account the gravitational effect.
Very interesting.
It think it is important to notice again clearly that the recent developpements about constant thrust for constant imput power and overunity were not for the aim of telling that the Em-effect was impossible; nor to reject experimental results. It was about several things.
1 : All reported experiments are at zero speed relatively to the earth, or at low speeds comparated to what is needed for space travel. So there is no experimental evidence about the comportement at high speeds relatively to earth.
2 : The Overunity argument was mentionned in the context of theories where the emdrive was not stealing Energy to anything. Shaywer and the Traveller do not pretend that the emdrive is stealing energy to something else.
When I (and some others) gave the argument or overunity, we had some answers like :
The Traveller : It does not matter since in the accelerating referential of the ship the Kinetic Energy is always zero, so no problem.
Or some others : There are Kinetic Energy conudrum even with classical rockets, when more Kinetic Energy is gained that chemical energy was spent, so we gain energy, but it does not violate CoE.
That was about this type of answers that my messages were.
Some assumed "an Emship get more Kinetic energy than it spent of electricity, because it is stealing energy to something else"
It is perfect for me. I already listed several possible cases, I just modified my own citation to make it more explicit.
Totally agree for relative velocity and kinetic energy. I agree also It is not a proof that the Emdrive don't work. There are at least 4 possibilities (probably there are many others)
1 : Emdrive doesn't work. No new physic needed.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive has a way of pushing against this reference frame. It does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed in the reference frame it is pushing against. New physics needed.
3 : Emdrive works, gives constant acceleration at constant power, but CoE is still not violated, because it is a way of stealing Energy to something else. Mutable Quantum Vacuum for example, or via gravity. New physics needed.
4 : Emdrive works at constant acceleration at constant power, without stealing energy to anything else. It violates CoE. New physics needed.
Also, again, at the attention of The Diyers, especially RFMWguy and SeeShells
All the argumentation that was given recently by me, Meberbs, Tellmeagain, Wicoe, was about the way the emdrive could comport in space, and how, if it is working like announced by Shawyer in his peer-rewieved publication, getting 0,67C in 10 years, it would violates CoE. It was not about your experiments, since your experiments are at low or zero speed in an earth referential. It does not means that the Emdrive did not work. It was not about that. It was about theory.
I still find interesting to differenciate theories about the Emdrive that violates CoE from the theory that does not violate CoE.
To come back to your message, Dr Rodal, if the frustrum is explained as a capacitor, does it mean that the thrust could be a Biefeld-Brown effect ? It would be very sad.
Why sad?
-
Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling"
. I'll be looking forward to reading the paper when I get back home to a proper computer. It was nearly impossible to hear him speak on skype.
I'm glad someone took my ramblings seriously on the evanescent wave functions and the blending of the Mach effect and other theories.
You all have a good weekend.
My Best,
Shell
And I'm glad Dr. Montillet kept working on a theroretical explanation of EmDrive thrust, we heard from him back to thread 6 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1491810#msg1491810)!
-
To come back to your message, Dr Rodal, if the frustrum is explained as a capacitor, does it mean that the thrust could be a Biefeld-Brown effect ? It would be very sad.
Why sad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
Because the Biefeld-Brown effect is admitted to rely on corona discharges, and does not work in vacuum.
-
To come back to your message, Dr Rodal, if the frustrum is explained as a capacitor, does it mean that the thrust could be a Biefeld-Brown effect ? It would be very sad.
Why sad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
Because the Biefeld-Brown effect is admitted to rely on corona discharges, and does not work in vacuum.
Thank you. And according to that link you end up with these.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
I would put this in a more uncertain terms.
In a superconducting cavity, the skin depth is not zero. In case of superconductor: skin depth δ must be replaced with London penetration depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_equations). Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Since the reason for superconductivity in a material is quite complex, naive extrapolations to the effectiveness of a superconducting EM Drive cannot and should not be based on just extrapolating results obtained from copper cavities based on "Q" quality factor scaling. (As some experimenters may have initially hoped) :)
Measured cyro cavity Qu is a real value. OK sure skin depth at cryo temps is complex for any cavity, even Cu or Ag and simplistic projections are not correct. However knowing the measured cavity cryo Qu does allow calculation of the energy storage of the cavity and from that thrust can be realistically calculated.
BTW when can we expect to see a MEGA thruster achieving 100mN of real world continual thrust for 24 hours?
-
The Traveller : It does not matter since in the accelerating referential of the ship the Kinetic Energy is always zero, so no problem.
If you were on the ship, I suggest you would appreciate ir's frame is the only frame that matters as the ship's EmDrive does work on the ship's mass to match velocity with a desired destination where you will disembark.
What some observer, on a different frame, calculates as KE change matters or effects the ship how?
-
At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
Agree.
Engineering wise, the cavity functions as a resonant parallel LC circuit. Inductive like below resonance, capacitive like above resonance, resistive like at resonance, with time constant & fill / discharge time like any parallel resonant circuit.
This is not now a capacitor operates.
-
Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling"
. I'll be looking forward to reading the paper when I get back home to a proper computer. It was nearly impossible to hear him speak on skype.
I'm glad someone took my ramblings seriously on the evanescent wave functions and the blending of the Mach effect and other theories.
You all have a good weekend.
My Best,
Shell
And I'm glad Dr. Montillet kept working on a theroretical explanation of EmDrive thrust, we heard from him back to thread 6 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1491810#msg1491810)!
I'm not sure how much to say as I'm expanding my building beyond this model and getting data.
Dr. Montillet is brilliant, as are you, Rodal, Todd and the many others who are contributing... (If I listed you all here I'd fill out this page, but ve have vays to know vho you are (in a bad German accent)) 8). I'm just an old girl engineer that's trying to wrap my head around some of the maths. I'm indebted to you all.
OK... hot tub time, as I promised not to work this weekend.
My Best,
Shell
PS: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are critical to understand in; Multiplicity of Solutions for Linear Partial Differential Equations Using (Generalized) Energy Operators
September 11, 2015
J.-P. Montillet
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02603v1.pdf
-
P.S. I saw HMXHMX say the videographers have to do some editing. Honestly, given the nirvana I imagine going on at this conference I would rather watch those videos unedited.
Not really. There were many times when the room turned into a fur-ball of multiple conversations all at once. Interruptions, everyone running out to see a rainbow, projector issues, dinner plans, etc. These parts of the recording would be useless to everyone and would make the resulting video much longer than it needs to be. We were in there for 3 whole days, I'd estimate there are probably at least 24 hours of video and audio to sift though and piece together into a coherent presentation. It would be a waste of the viewers time to listen to that garble.
From the perspective of wanting maximum technical information with the least amount of distraction. I would agree with you. However, if the ideas we are talking about lead to humanity developing a device that allows them to interact with gravity in a manner previously not allowed. I don't think it hyperbole to believe this workshop will be an important foot note in history. So being able to hear the raw discussions without anyone's editing would be useful.
-
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
Is that the start of technical insight from theoretical understanding that we are seeing here?
Seems like indeed a lot happened in that workshop, that we have yet to see surface.
Also, if I understand well what you are saying, a superconductive Emdrive is simply a wrong path. Only non superconductive ones would show any effect.
Which makes me wonder, how strong can it get? which are the critical parameters to optimize for seeing a clear signal from any experiment, according to this model?
If I could answer those questions I'd be famous. There seems to be a common theme pertaining to gravity, and damping as presented in my paper. My "prediction" is that the superconducting frustum won't work. DIY'ers might consider using other materials besides copper, such as brass or nickel, or asymmetrical metal end plates such as copper in the back and nickel in the front, and see how these compare to copper. I don't have any other insights at this time.
I would put this in a more uncertain terms.
In a superconducting cavity, the skin depth is not zero. In case of superconductor: skin depth δ must be replaced with London penetration depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_equations). Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Since the reason for superconductivity in a material is quite complex, naive extrapolations to the effectiveness of a superconducting EM Drive cannot and should not be based on just extrapolating results obtained from copper cavities based on "Q" quality factor scaling. (As some experimenters may have initially hoped) :)
It would be interesting if the big end were superconducting and the rest was not.
It would also be interesting if the impedance of the skin effect were matched to the input impedance of the cavity.
-
...To come back to your message, Dr Rodal, if the frustrum is explained as a capacitor, does it mean that the thrust could be a Biefeld-Brown effect ? It would be very sad.
If you are referring to Dr. Montillet's paper, as explained in this message ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214 ), "Montillet only discusses equivalent circuit models to facilitate understanding of the differential equations involved. Of course, since Montillet's discussion involves evanescent waves, Montillet treatment in his paper is mathematical and not based on equivalent circuits". The force of the EM Drive is explained by Montillet as a gravitational Mach/Sciama/Woodward effect.
-
The Traveller : It does not matter since in the accelerating referential of the ship the Kinetic Energy is always zero, so no problem.
If you were on the ship, I suggest you would appreciate ir's frame is the only frame that matters as the ship's EmDrive does work on the ship's mass to match velocity with a desired destination where you will disembark.
What some observer, on a different frame, calculates as KE change matters or effects the ship how?
First, the ship frame is not an inertial frame. You can't simply apply conservation of energy, or really do energy based calculations in that frame without taking the acceleration into account. There would be a "fictitious" work terms that need to be integrated into the energy calculation to get the right answer, just like you have to account for the "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in a rotating reference frame. (fictitious is an unfortunate word, since the forces are quite real)
Second, physics is immune to changes in reference frame (although additional details are needed to be included for non-inertial frames) If you show CoE broken in one frame then it is broken. Pick any (for simplicity preferably inertial) frame and you should be able to calculate where the device will end up. This should be the same result no matter what frame you do it in.
-
At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
Agree.
Engineering wise, the cavity functions as a resonant parallel LC circuit. Inductive like below resonance, capacitive like above resonance, resistive like at resonance, with time constant & fill / discharge time like any parallel resonant circuit.
This is not now a capacitor operates.
If the capacitor analogy is better than a very loose one, I'd suspect an EM drive stores a rather different form of energy than electric charge.
-
I have a question concerning the statement that if you were inside an accelerating rocket, with no external view or information, that it is impossible to distinguish between the force of acceleration and gravity, such as might be experienced if the rocket was standing on the surface of a planet. My question is why cannot the gradient of gravitational attraction found near a planet (say) be used to distinguish between gravity and acceleration?
That is, would not a gravitometer in the top of the rocket compartment measure less force than one at the base, and would those devices not measure exactly the same force under a constant acceleration?
Of course the gravity gradient would be very small and perhaps even impossible to measure, although I do recall reading of a measurement of a gradient using a tall building, so it is apparently measureable at some level. But the statement of principle attributed to Einstein (?) does not say "almost impossible" - it says impossible, period. Since this principle seems central to understanding the EM arguments pro and con, I wonder if anyone here can help me understand the flaw in my thinking?
-
I have a question concerning the statement that if you were inside an accelerating rocket, with no external view or information, that it is impossible to distinguish between the force of acceleration and gravity, such as might be experienced if the rocket was standing on the surface of a planet. My question is why cannot the gradient of gravitational attraction found near a planet (say) be used to distinguish between gravity and acceleration?
That is, would not a gravitometer in the top of the rocket compartment measure less force than one at the base, and would those devices not measure exactly the same force under a constant acceleration?
Of course the gravity gradient would be very small and perhaps even impossible to measure, although I do recall reading of a measurement of a gradient using a tall building, so it is apparently measureable at some level. But the statement of principle attributed to Einstein (?) does not say "almost impossible" - it says impossible, period. Since this principle seems central to understanding the EM arguments pro and con, I wonder if anyone here can help me understand the flaw in my thinking?
See: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172739/is-the-lay-explanation-of-the-equivalence-principle-wrong
http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2008/SS08/EP_Mich.pdf
-
I have a question concerning the statement that if you were inside an accelerating rocket, with no external view or information, that it is impossible to distinguish between the force of acceleration and gravity, such as might be experienced if the rocket was standing on the surface of a planet. My question is why cannot the gradient of gravitational attraction found near a planet (say) be used to distinguish between gravity and acceleration?
That is, would not a gravitometer in the top of the rocket compartment measure less force than one at the base, and would those devices not measure exactly the same force under a constant acceleration?
Of course the gravity gradient would be very small and perhaps even impossible to measure, although I do recall reading of a measurement of a gradient using a tall building, so it is apparently measureable at some level. But the statement of principle attributed to Einstein (?) does not say "almost impossible" - it says impossible, period. Since this principle seems central to understanding the EM arguments pro and con, I wonder if anyone here can help me understand the flaw in my thinking?
The impossible to tell the difference is between an acceleration and a uniform gravitational field. As you pointed out, a planet doesn't have a uniform field, and that could be detected. I believe an infinite flat plane of uniform density would produce a truly uniform gravitational field, if you want an example of how that could theoretically exist.
Also, while it was brought up by someone, none of the points I have made rely on the gravity/acceleration equivalence. Just the fact that non-inertial frames aren't the same as inertial frames which is from basic Newtonian physics, and all inertial reference frames are equivalent from special relativity.
-
At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
Agree.
Engineering wise, the cavity functions as a resonant parallel LC circuit. Inductive like below resonance, capacitive like above resonance, resistive like at resonance, with time constant & fill / discharge time like any parallel resonant circuit.
This is not now a capacitor operates.
You post this after this issue has already been explained in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214 , which the person you are addressing (zen-in) already gave a "like" to, and you ignore this explanation in your post. Again, Dr. Montlillet's paper is not about a capacitor. As explained, he initially uses an equivalent circuit model to motivate understanding of the differential equations in his formal paper. Also, at the workshop, rather than presenting the actual, full mathematical equations for the evanescent wave solution, and given the small amount of time given for his presentation, the foreign accent and quality of audio transmission, he wisely used his time to first show an equivalent circuit model that electrical engineers could easily relate to (rather than differential equations).
Furthermore, as SeeShells stated:
....
Dr. Jean-Philippe Montillet of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, presented a paper titled "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling"
. I'll be looking forward to reading the paper when I get back home to a proper computer. It was nearly impossible to hear him speak on skype.
...
Given your response that instead takes the very first simplified analogy for the real thing, we might as well wait for all the videos of the presentations at the Estes Park Breaktrhough Propulsion Workshop to be posted at www.ssi.org and the papers of the conference to be released than to attempt to briefly discuss any other presentations.
Because obviously there is no space here to post the full paper, and one cannot post LaTeX equations here. And because a good-will attempt to try to use an analogy to briefly explain the mathematical solution in simple terms to a wider audience unfortunately resulted in some people confusing the simplified analogy with the actual model.
-
I will look for that talk when the video becomes available. However my first reaction to this idea that a cavity can act like a capaciter is to ask whoever makes that claim to look at the boundary conditions. The inside of the cavity is a conductor so any em field at that interface will have a high current, low voltage node. There are RF topologies that do act like capacitors. They are usually at the end of a 1/4λ driven conductor, typically an antenna, and sometimes have rounded flat surfaces. At resonance the cavity would be purely resistive. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance are conjugates. For maximum power to be coupled to the EM-Drive (ie: highest Q) the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance have to be complex conjugates. So to say an EM-Drive is a kind of capacitor does not make physical sense. That's just my opinion. I am interested to see how this idea is developed and how it causes the thrust claimed for EM-Drives.
If you read my last paper, then you should understand that Gravity can be modeled as damping of the resonance, aka "resistance". As Q increases, so do the losses from resistance due to higher power and current, and the thrust increases accordingly. I suspect that the reason we haven't heard about the great performance of a superconducting frustum, is because when all the resistive losses are removed, so is the thrust. Shawyer is probably still trying to figure out why it doesn't work with 1000X more thrust than the non-superconducting drive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
I wouldn't count Shawyer out just yet. I could just as well assume there is a lot of progress behind the scenes. Also, Cannae reports a fairly high superconducting thrust.
-
This new paper seems relevant if the EM drive works the way Dr Rodal proposes.
How Isotropic is the Universe?
A fundamental assumption in the standard model of cosmology is that the Universe is isotropic on large scales. Breaking this assumption leads to a set of solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as Bianchi cosmologies, only a subset of which have ever been tested against data. For the first time, we consider all degrees of freedom in these solutions to conduct a general test of isotropy using cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization data from Planck. For the vector mode (associated with vorticity), we obtain a limit on the anisotropic expansion of (σV/H)0<4.7×10−11 (95% C.L.), which is an order of magnitude tighter than previous Planck results that used cosmic microwave background temperature only. We also place upper limits on other modes of anisotropic expansion, with the weakest limit arising from the regular tensor mode, (σT,reg/H)0<1.0×10−6 (95% C.L.). Including all degrees of freedom simultaneously for the first time, anisotropic expansion of the Universe is strongly disfavored, with odds of 121 000:1 against.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302
-
This new paper seems relevant if the EM drive works the way Dr Rodal proposes.
...
Thank you, but if the EM Drive turns out to actually function as Dr. Montillet proposes, Dr. Montillet deserves the full and total credit for his explanation and derivation.
I will refrain from discussing any other presentations at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop until the videos and presentations are made available at www.ssi.org
-
This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587948#msg1587948). The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
Sorry, but Woodward's arguments are convincin. I think he knows what he's talking about esp. since he's been dealing with this for decades.
-
This new paper seems relevant if the EM drive works the way Dr Rodal proposes.
...
Thank you, but if the EM Drive turns out to actually function as Dr. Montillet proposes, Dr. Montillet deserves the full and total credit for his explanation and derivation.
I will refrain from discussing any other presentations at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop until the videos and presentations are made available at www.ssi.org
I apologise you're quite correct a poor choice of words on my behalf.
-
I've been working on spherical end-plate emdrive meshes that can be 3d printed or CNC machined. Not a lot of 3d printing shops can print something the size of the side walls in a ~2.4Ghz TE013 frustum, so for one option, I have split the side walls in two.
I can print the entire 3-piece frustum in ASA for $670. And then copper/silver electroplate the ASA. I still need to add bolt holes, but haven't decided on a bolt size yet. :'(
-
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.
I don't believe CoE or CoM will be violated by a proven theory. That extra energy/momentum is likely coming from a source we previously didn't think possible to tap. However, I do accept your point that as currently defined by Shawyer his theory would violate CoE/CoM. However, I don't remember who said this. But I am inclined to agree that the Theory Shawyer has floated is likely incomplete. Not sure if that is on purpose (For reasons Shawyer deems important) or just because he is still developing it.
As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.
I don't think the assertion you made (highlighted above) is correct. I have spent a bit of time arguing in support of the short over unity paper that Woodward released on the Mach Effects Thread. While I know I was never able to get past the need to reset in order to avoid over unity problems Woodward rebuked in the prior half of the paper. One thing did jump out at me. Every time this disagreement arises, proponents try to explain this via an example of a rocket. However, because devices governed by Mach Effects don't work like rockets we are implicitly asking critics to accept some handwaving. Which they don't and we continue talking past each other. How about we reset this part of the conversation by asserting that devices governed by Mach Effects do not work like rockets and examples using rockets to explain how they work are inherently flawed and should be used with EXTREME CARE.
Now, according to Woodward an ME device is physically changing constantly. The fluctuating mass component is having its mass vary over time. In addition, there is an actuator force pushing against the fluctuating mass when it is heavier and pulling on it when it is lighter. So for me if there is the potential for a reset/re-gauge to take place.
Personally, I have come to think of devices governed by ME as basically row boats treating inertia as their ocean. With the difference being that while a person operating a row boat has to pull their Orr out of the water during a release. a device governed by ME simply reduces the mass of the water during the release just before the recovery phase where the Orr is returned to its previous position to prepare for another catch. Then just before the catch is initiated the mass of the water is increased and the extraction phase begins again. This cycle is repeated over and over till you get to where you are going. Now, let us assume it is an infinite glassily still body of water, where for additional simplicity there is zero air friction. In this experiment as we all know for every increment of velocity, I would like to gain in my direction of motion I need to put more energy in than I did on my previous stroke. That is because the water I am using to push off of is not moving at all. So the minute I initiate the catch the friction from the water will begin draining away the boat's momentum and transfer it to the water colliding with the Orr. Now, what happens if we change the experiment a bit and dictate that the glassy water is constantly moving in the opposite direction of my motion. In this case, I now need to put even more energy into the Orr in order to continue moving in the direction I have chosen. How about if the direction of motion of the glassy water is always moving in the same direction the boat is moving in but always at the same speed that the boat is moving in. In this later case, I would never need to put in more energy than I originally needed to begin moving in the first place.
Like the many rocket examples that have been used to try and explain why there is no over-unity problem. There is a critical assumption I am making that doesn't seem to be obviously true in the case of a thruster device governed by ME driven starship, instead of a row boat. That assumption is having the glassy-surfaced water magically always moving in the same direction of motion as the boat at the same speed the boat is moving at. In the case of a ME governed thruster that glassy-surfaced water is really the fluctuating mass within the thruster. The Orr becomes a piezo electric acctuator; and the boat is the rest mass that is attached to the actuator. From what I have understood from Woodward's description of operation. While the thing you are pushing off of is the Fluctuating Mass (only when its mass is heaviest), the reason any momentum can be transferred at all to the Rest mass is because of inertia. Inertia is trying to resist having that fluctuating mass move in the direction the actuator is pushing in; thereby generating an equal but opposite force in the desired direction of motion. Now the reason I believe the idea of a reset/re-guage is valid. Is because what really governs your acceleration is the difference between the inertial force resisting the pull from the release position back to the catch position and the inertial force resisting the push from the catch position to the finish position. Given what little I know if the equations of motions involved. The reset wouldn't occur because the actuator moved the fluctuating mass from release position to catch position. It occurs during mass fluctuation; since that is the only thing that would alter the magnitude of the inertia the actuator would experience.
Now if our thruster governed by Mach Effects, was limited to only being able to attain a mass fluctuation of +/- 10% of rest mass. Then eventually there is a terminal velocity for this particular thruster configuration. This arises because on every stroke the actuator must be able to change the direction of the Fluctuating Mass component opposite to the path of acceleration. This will be trivial on the recovery phase of the stroke. It will not be on the extraction phase. On the extraction phase, the force that can be extracted will be explicitly governed by two things.
1. What is the maximum pushing force the actuator can generate?
2. What is the maximum deviation from rest mass that the thruster can generate on the fluctuating mass component?
so if our mass fluctuation is limited to +/- 10% of rest mass then eventually we will attain a speed equal to the maximum pushing force for the actuator. Since the actuator has to oppose that force to move the fluctuating mass back to the finish position.
This means in order to get constant acceleration. You must continue to increase the magnitude of the mass fluctuation. Unfortunately, I doubt nature will be nice enough to grant us the ability to infinitely alter the fluctuating mass. At a maximum If we increase the mass too much, I would think that we run a decent shot at creating a black hole. So to maintain a constant acceleration for a notable period of time I would assume given an actuator with a fixed pushing force. You would alter the delta of the fluctuating mass component's increase and decrease based on what the current velocity is. As our velocity increases, we would aim to keep the fluctuating mass component increases at the point where the actuator can maintain its maximum pushing force; irrespective of the increasing kinetic energy of the ship as a whole. While also keeping the fluctuating mass component decreases at least to the point where the difference in Flarger - Fsmaller is as large enough to maintain dialed in level of acceleration.
P.S.
The rowing terminology used in the row boat example were taken from the Rowing (Sport) article in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowing_(sport)#Anatomy_of_a_stroke)
-
This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587948#msg1587948). The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
Sorry, but Woodward's arguments are convincin. I think he knows what he's talking about esp. since he's been dealing with this for decades.
You can be dealing with something for decades and still be wrong. In this case it only takes college freshman level physics to find the issues. How about you try actually stating which of my counterarguments you don't find convincing.
-
This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587948#msg1587948). The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
Sorry, but Woodward's arguments are convincin. I think he knows what he's talking about esp. since he's been dealing with this for decades.
You can be dealing with something for decades and still be wrong. In this case it only takes college freshman level physics to find the issues. How about you try actually stating which of my counterarguments you don't find convincing.
Please see my post made immediately before yours.
In short thought. the only really questionable thin in that paper is the supposed endorsement of being able to simply have the thruster reset or know when some arbitrary limit of kinetic energy occurs. In my post what I laid out is that while it does look a bit outlandish on paper. If you are aware of how Woodward says ME Devices are supposed to operate you can find a place for you to do the reset being proposed. The problem is in our discussions we assume the mass fluctuation is static. But there is nothing in the theory limiting delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass component. So to maintain constant acceleration you just need to constantly adjust the delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass component. That adjustment allows you to basically reset the calculation for over unit everytime you do carry it out.
On the flip side if you keep the delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass remains constant then eventually you will reach terminal velocity. I would imagine the velocity graph of the device would resemble that of a rocket in that case. Though the limiting factor here ends up being the max force the actuator acting on the fluctuating mass can generate. As long as the actuator can continue to push and pull that fluctuating mass in such a way that the equal and opposite inertial forces differ then there will continue to be acceleration. Its just that as Kinetic energy increases for the ship. It also increases for the Fluctuating mass which means the actuator either needs to be able to push harder or we need to be able to change the kinetic energy of the fluctuating mass to never be greater than the force that can be generated by the actuator.
-
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.
I don't believe CoE or CoM will be violated by a proven theory. That extra energy/momentum is likely coming from a source we previously didn't think possible to tap. However, I do accept your point that as currently defined by Shawyer his theory would violate CoE/CoM. However, I don't remember who said this. But I am inclined to agree that the Theory Shawyer has floated is likely incomplete. Not sure if that is on purpose (For reasons Shawyer deems important) or just because he is still developing it.
Yes, we are in agreement. The issue is only certain theoretical frameworks such as Shawyer's. Based on the papers Shawyer has written, and statements and responses he has made, it seems to me that he simply doesn't understand that their is anything wrong with his theory. (There is another conclusion I could come to, but that one is significantly less charitable)
As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.
I don't think the assertion you made (highlighted above) is correct. I have spent a bit of time arguing in support of the short over unity paper that Woodward released on the Mach Effects Thread. While I know I was never able to get past the need to reset in order to avoid over unity problems Woodward rebuked in the prior half of the paper. One thing did jump out at me. Every time this disagreement arises, proponents try to explain this via an example of a rocket. However, because devices governed by Mach Effects don't work like rockets we are implicitly asking critics to accept some handwaving. Which they don't and we continue talking past each other. How about we reset this part of the conversation by asserting that devices governed by Mach Effects do not work like rockets and examples using rockets to explain how they work are inherently flawed and should be used with EXTREME CARE.
...
[Trimmed for length.]
First, A general comment on the rocket analogies. The descriptions of them that come up in this context are to explain why rockets can get around the overunity problem of constant force/energy, since "but rockets" is a common response to a proof of the overunity. This does not mean that I, or others, are treating the emDrive as a rocket, just treating it as an object subject to the same laws of mechanics as everything else.
The problem with the paper is that it doesn't say any of the things that you just said. When I opened it, I expected an explanation of what loophole METs use to get around the overunity problem. Instead I found an attempt to deny that it is a problem to begin with. While it uses math, it is worded more like a persuasive essay the a scientific paper, and it just handwaves away the central problem. It comes across as "I want this to work, so I assume that the problem is not on my end"
Some amount of handwaving would be okay, for example if it skipped a bunch of general relativity and explained the net effect of using distant stars as reaction mass or something. I would have further questions in that case, but assuming the skipped steps were done right, it would be a valid argument.
A summary of the biggest problems with that paper:
1. It calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
2. It completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I am not going to critique the explanation in your post here (both posts, I did see the other one as I was typing this), because it amounts to proposing a theory of operation that might be consistent (acceptable handwaving), unlike the paper. Also, it is more relevant to the Mach effect, so discussion of it would better go in the other thread. What you say though does not make the Woodward's paper any less wrong. You make the claim that there is a way around the overunity for a specific device, while Woodward tries and fails to prove that the overunity is not a real problem.
-
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.
As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.
P.S. If someone still insists it can't work because 'momentum isn't conserved' assume it is, and assume however it is, the ship is just borrowing additional kinetic energy from the 'exhaust' of the universe just as it is in a rocket.
The argument isn't that it can't work because momentum is not conserved, the argument is that certain theories (Shawyer's) are wrong because they don't allow momentum or energy to be conserved.
Everything you said about the rocket is true, however, if you let the rocket burn long enough (unfortunately, you can't because of practical mass limits), even accounting the exhaust energy balance, you would run into the same problem as with the EmDrive.
The rocket doesn't have the problem exactly because it stops working when it runs out of fuel to borrow energy from. Any rocket you can imagine, even the most efficient possible (matter-antimatter reactor with a laser exhaust) will not result in any paradox, energy will always be perfectly balanced. Yet for the proposed explanations of the EMDrive, where it does not have exhaust of any form including a medium to push against, it is easy to find examples that break CoE.
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames. You can use the Work-Energy Theorem in any observer frame and you'll see energy balances. I believe nature doesn't care how you generate your constant force.
Integrate Force x distance = kinetic energy
Let F= k x power.
For light k= 1/c. For beamed power k= 2/c. For photon recycling k= n/c. For EmDrive k= figure of merit.
force x acceleration x time squared/2 = kinetic energy
k x power x acceleration x time squared/2 = kinetic energy
(power x time) x (k/2 x acceleration x time) = kinetic energy
(energy in) x (k/2 x acceleration x time) = kinetic energy
It seems to me that this is the proper equation. The factor (k/2 x acceleration x time) or (k/2 x v) is the conversion between frames. I believe the mistake is to claim energy input in the ships frame must equal kinetic energy in earth frame without that factor.
It is my understanding that Woodward is saying that every example that "breaks" CoE is a misapplication and a misunderstanding of classical physics because it really doesn't violate CoE. Saying CoE is broken is saying classical mechanics doesn't work.
For beamed propulsion the best you get is that power x time = c/v x kinetic energy so as v approaches c, energy in approaches the kinetic energy. But for photon recycling one can do much better. Let the photons effectively recycle 30,000 times which is not much of a stretch to lab experiments that prove it works. Then the balance is power x time=1/30,000 x c/v x kinetic energy so you "break" the energy balance at only a mere v=10km/s which is not very much relative to light speed.
Does anyone here really think the device would just stop working at v= 10 km/s? If so please say how. I think it would keep going as would any such device. Conceptually, photon recycling should serve as an existence proof that such devices do not violate CoE.
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames. You can use the Work-Energy Theorem in any observer frame and you'll see energy balances. I believe nature doesn't care how you generate your constant force.
...
No, we are not comparing between different frames. Go see this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587476#msg1587476). Gilbertdrive did those calculations in a single frame the observer at rest in the frame that is the initial rest frame of the drive. The starting stored energy, and the final kinetic energy show a huge problem.
The only people who are jumping frames here are Woodward and TheTraveller. They seem to think they can treat a non-inertial frame as if it was inertial. You have the right criticism, directed at the wrong group.
As for the rest of your post
For light k= 1/c. For beamed power k= 2/c. For photon recycling k= n/c. For EmDrive k= figure of merit.
This would be for a recycling photon rocket, that uses a retroreflector on the moon (for example). Then, the energy of the photon beam (decreasing due to redshift), and the momentum/energy exchange with the moon make everything balance. Classical mechanics (with special relativity applied because of the photons) works perfectly fine here. Claims otherwise are wrong.
The emDrive is completely different because according to Shawyer it works as a closed system.
-
...
First, A general comment on the rocket analogies. The descriptions of them that come up in this context are to explain why rockets can get around the overunity problem of constant force/energy, since "but rockets" is a common response to a proof of the overunity. This does not mean that I, or others, are treating the emDrive as a rocket, just treating it as an object subject to the same laws of mechanics as everything else.
The problem with the paper is that it doesn't say any of the things that you just said. When I opened it, I expected an explanation of what loophole METs use to get around the overunity problem. Instead I found an attempt to deny that it is a problem to begin with. While it uses math, it is worded more like a persuasive essay the a scientific paper, and it just handwaves away the central problem. It comes across as "I want this to work, so I assume that the problem is not on my end"
Some amount of handwaving would be okay, for example if it skipped a bunch of general relativity and explained the net effect of using distant stars as reaction mass or something. I would have further questions in that case, but assuming the skipped steps were done right, it would be a valid argument.
A summary of the biggest problems with that paper:
1. It calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
2. It completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I am not going to critique the explanation in your post here (both posts, I did see the other one as I was typing this), because it amounts to proposing a theory of operation that might be consistent (acceptable handwaving), unlike the paper. Also, it is more relevant to the Mach effect, so discussion of it would better go in the other thread. What you say though does not make the Woodward's paper any less wrong. You make the claim that there is a way around the overunity for a specific device, while Woodward tries and fails to prove that the overunity is not a real problem.
I will agree with your point about the professionalism of the paper. but it actually wasn't a paper. I forgot the term that was used when it was released. But anyway I don't think it is fair to interpret the content of that paper in a vacuum which is what I have seen happen every time it is brought up. So I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if your interested in the topic enough to read the paper you would at least read up on the theory/device that the accusations are being made against.
I have already had a similar discussion about this with WallOfWolfStreet on the MET Thread. So I would like to avoid a rehash if possible. As for
It calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
While I agree that the tone of the paper is anything but scientific in tone. the argument being made isn't criticizing the technique. He is saying in a proof by definition sorta way that Yes CoM/CoE is the law of the land and always will be the law of the land, and the only way you can get to breaking CoM/CoE is by doing the math wrong. So basically Woodward is agreeing that you cannot break CoM/CoE, and by extension (which is not proven up to that point of the paper) MET's cannot break CoM/CoE.
It completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I believe this takes place in the last part of the paper, and I would have easily agreed with anyone that it looks like Woodward walks off the deep end; as he seems to attempt to show why thrusters governed by ME will never exceed over unity. Earlier this year I had a similar conversation with WallOfWolfStreet on the ME Thread, even though I privately would give Woodward the benefit of the doubt. I just couldn't make heads of tails of why he would possibly think that explanation would make sense. It wasn't until I revisited that Flux capacitors paper where he explains the mechanical operation of a device governed by ME that I suspected it had something to do with how these type of devices are supposed to operate from a mechanical perspective. I thought about it more and it eventually dawned on me that the problem is with the assumption that the mass change is fixed. When you think about it that way there is no way to avoid over unity and the explanation at the end of that paper makes no sense. But if the Mass change can be dynamically controlled then you basically have the ability to control the kinetic energy contained within the Fluctuating Mass being used to generate thrust. It is only from that context where that last part of the paper makes sense. Now since the KE of an object is dependent on its Mass being able to change that mass should give you the ability to maintain a situation where you can for a period of time maintain constant acceleration. Since all you need to do is alter the kinetic energy enough to maintain maximal thrust. This is what provides Woodward with the ability to make the claim made at the end of the paper as dynamically varying the Fluctuating mass component of a thruster governed by ME, In addition to allowing him to "jumping frames and treat accelerating frames as if it was inertial"
That said, everything I raised in my previous post is a logical consequence of the description Woodward has given of thrusters governed by Mach Effects. In addition, with the comments that Rodal and others have made about ME being used as a potential theory to explain EmDrive propulsion, I think my lay-person interpretation is valid within this thread. Though I am more than willing to relocate it if necessary.
-
I have finished reading Professor Woodward's paper. I would say, meberbs is right and professor Woodward is wrong. I am quite busy and my short report will need a few days to be ready. This paper needs only first grade college level physics and I encourage readers who have such education take a close look of it. The math from eqn 1-9 are all right. eqn 16 is wrong in his interpretation.
-
I have finished reading Professor Woodward's paper. I would say, meberbs is right and professor Woodward is wrong. I am quite busy and my short report will need a few days to be ready. This paper needs only first grade college level physics and I encourage readers who have such education take a close look of it. The math from eqn 1-9 are all right. eqn 16 is wrong in his interpretation.
I eagerly await the report. However if the interpretation of eqn 16 you are referring to is the following
Given the form of Newton’s second law as stated in Equations (1) and (16), even
competent physicists have come to believe that v dM/dt is a force, just as Ma is a force.
But v dM/dt isn’t like an Ma force. This is usually illustrated in elementary physics texts
with problems/examples like: a railway car moves along a smooth, level, straight,
frictionless track with constant velocity. A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to
fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth
(which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls? A
colleague who monitors the pedagogical literature tells me that people routinely mess this
up – and that at intervals of five to ten years, articles or blog comments addressing this
issue routinely appear. And, alas, that even those attuned to the subtleties of the issue
make mistakes in handling it.
Then I would ask that you review the discussion that was had in the ME thread that begins about 1/4 to 1/2 in to the page.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531664#msg1531664 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531664#msg1531664)
IIRC that's where FluxCapacitor brought up this same paper and WallOfWolfStreet raised similar critiques. One issue that stuck for him I believe is perfectly crystalized as follows
I see your point. but after my discussion with wallofwolfstreet. I am beginning to understand that the core problem here isnt so much what that term in the equation of motion means. Its whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.
Exactly. In the case where we use the correct F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + udm/dt, you just substitute u=w-v, where w is the velocity of the mass flow in the frame of reference in which v is measured. You still end up with the exact same probelm, namely "How can the velocity term in the full equation of motion F=dp/dt be zero despite the fact the MET is accelerating?", only now the question has shifted to why should w=0?
If this is the case I still hold my personal opinion that the only place this can really be resolved is in experiment. Especially if the results of those experiments fall in line with the predictions made from the thrust generation predictions derived from HN Theory of Gravitation and GR. If We have a situation where experiment and proposed theory strongly agree and can be replicated. I think the concern being raised
whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.
should be changed to
How is the effect on display, able to zero out that term in the equation of motion?
P.S. If I am way off base that's fine. Left this here because I am not sure I will be able to access the thread for a bit and wanted to possibly point out a separate conversation that could have already been had over the same thing.
P.S.S.
the Wasner paper we talk about during that discussion can be found here http://www.tsijournals.com/abstract/center-of-mass-acceleration-of-an-isolated-system-of-two-particles-with-time-variable-masses-interacting-with-each-other-2502.html (http://www.tsijournals.com/abstract/center-of-mass-acceleration-of-an-isolated-system-of-two-particles-with-time-variable-masses-interacting-with-each-other-2502.html)
-
In a recent meeting. ::) Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
-
In a recent meeting. ::) Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
Interesting link. Thanks for sharing. Some thoughts follow.
Wiki: Ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy
Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?
Me: Evidence of pancaking of the CMB by our motion relative to the universe? It's the impression I get.
Wiki: Dimensionless physical constant
At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement.[3][4] What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all? Is Dirac large numbers hypothesis true?
Paper:The Fundamental Physics of Electromagnetic Waves
Juliana H. J. Mortenson General Resonance, LLC USA (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7498212624230893803&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5)
Paper: When the missing time variable is restored to the quantum formula, the identity of Planck’s real universal constant becomes apparent. The hidden constant is, in fact, a universal energy constant, namely the energy of a single oscillation or EM wave. This universal energy constant for light is that same ”isolated quantity of energy” de Broglie searched for, i.e., the fundamental small quantum of light’s energy:
...
The fine structure constant is not dimensionless. It represents a scaling constant between time and a single oscillation of EM energy, i.e., “osc t”. As such, a theoretical element corresponding to an element of reality is now provided for the fine structure constant. This is a critical requirement for a complete quantum mechanics.
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame.
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
-
In a recent meeting. ::) Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
Totally true. I do not know the exact context so I do not know exactly why the phrase "You physicists should be ashamed!" It is not a shame to do not solve everything. But if I guess it was about new theories.
The standard model is full of holes. Full of observations that does not fit at all with the model. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact. New theories to explain observations are a necessity.
When somebody comes with a new theory, the right approach is to do consistency check, many calculus, and the comparison with the experiments and observations. Most of new theories don't resist to this approach because they have also flaws... but some people are trying to explain that we should not even do that. That we should no try to find theories that differs from RG or QM. As if they were perfect theories, with nothing more to search. They ignore the 1000's of problems. Fortunately they are not on this forum. :)
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
There are more problems then that with that rotating rig :
- IIRC, Shell, thanks to her engineering experience, explained that air bearings can induce rotations due to vibrations.
-And then there is the gyroscopic effect of the water pump, because it's rotation plane does not traverse the rig's rotation axis.
I still think it can be a very compelling evidence, on condition these remarks are worked on...
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
I know nothing more about the test data from the rotary test rig than what I have shared and Roger has made available on his web site. Did ask for more data to be made available.
As I know the EmDrive does produce thrust, as do 4 other builders I communicate with, there was no compass action. It rotated from thrust generation. Should add have seen another video of a rotating EmDrive, which should one day become public.
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
There are more problems then that with that rotating rig :
- IIRC, Shell, thanks to her engineering experience, explained that air bearings can induce rotations due to vibrations.
-And then there is the gyroscopic effect of the water pump, because it's rotation plane does not traverse the rig's rotation axis.
I still think it can be a very compelling evidence, on condition these remarks are worked on...
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust.
-
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust.
Agreed , it could be an indication but there is no way to verify whether or the pump was already running or not... so the test is not free of doubt...
You take a leap of faith believing Shawyer on his word.
On the contrary, EM-haters use any tiny bit of doubt to discredit the whole setup.
Me personally , I find it a very compelling video but I'd like to see certain points addressed before feeling comfortable accepting it as proof the EM effect is real.
I'm not yet prepared to jump, like you did...
but as I keep an open mind to it, give me a safety harness (unambiguous tests), then yeah, I'll jump, like many of us here in this topic... :)
The issue is to eliminate all other interference's and possible causes for the measured/observed forces, until there is only 1 possible explanation possible : that of an EM drive effect.
At this moment, you're jumping the gun. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but that the other possible effects need to be eliminated before reaching that final conclusion.
-
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust.
Agreed , it could be an indication but there is no way to verify whether or the pump was already running or not... so the test is not free of doubt...
At the Sept 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Conference, George Hathaway (see for example: http://bit.ly/2dlXkJ3 ) who had a great presentation on possible experimental artifacts in experiments such as EM Drive and electromagnetic propulsion experiments (see SeeShells post below) made a skeptical remark about this video of Shawyer's rotating rig.
...While at the workshop one presentation hit home by a exceptional engineer who has been working in the fields of unusual phenomena, debunking extraordinary claims for 30 years. He made me proud to be called an engineer. He presented (I would guess) over a hundred processes who's actions could produce not only false positives, but also increase the error windows in the testing phase. Try as I may I could only add a couple odd ball actions to the list. The real gold in his presentation relates to the fact, that if you take into account and quantify or negate these list of actions you will be left with solid data and have your test data be taken much more seriously. We all deserve that, not only believers but skeptics.
I'll try to relist these in the days to come.
Shell
George Hathaway has tested the piezoelectric/electrostictive unequal mass stack of Prof. Woodward, as well as numerous other forms of proposed electromagnetic levitation.
It would be very interesting if George Hathaway would test this rotary EM Drive rig, as it remains one of the most perplexing experimental evidence to date.
-
In a recent meeting. ::) Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
Did you notice that most of the questions start with the word "Why"? When I first started doing physics, I asked "Why is the speed of light constant?". I was told "Physics doesn't answer "Why" questions, it only makes measurements and describes what is measured. If the theory fits the observations, that is all that is required. Why it's that way is metaphysics."
Luckily, I found it is isn't constant, and it depends on how you define your reference frame, local or distant. So the answer was, if you're ruler and clock are immersed in the same vacuum where you are making the measurement, it will appear constant because your ruler and clock have been "normalized" to that environment. But when you take the distant perspective and keep your ruler and clock constant, we see that in gravitational fields, light speed slows down and creates a variable refractive index. This explains what we really observe more accurately, but it still doesn't answer "Why?".
Many of these questions can and have been answered. They are just not known, or not accepted by the general population, and the methodology of physics is just unacceptable to some people. So they keep asking the same question; "Why?".
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
However, I'm worried about the temperatures as most of the 3dprinting plastics loose their structural strength very fast...
I've reading very good reports on Ultem9085 printing as it keeps it strength up to much higher temperatures, but it is rather expensive stuff...
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with any unreinforced thermoplastic polymer, (including polyetherimide "Ultem tradename"), will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
Unreinforced thermoplastic polymers have much less thermal conductivity than metals
Material Thermal conductivity (W/mK) at room temperature (25 C)
ABS 0.14 to 0.21 (depending on formulation)
Ultem 0.12 to 0.22 (depending on formulation)
Copper 401.
Silver 429.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver., as well as their high thermal expansion. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity and low thermal expansion.
Unreinforced thermoplastic polymers are much less stiff than metals
Material Modulus of elasticity (GPa) at room temperature (25 C)
ABS 2.0 to 2.6 (depending on formulation)
Ultem 1000 3.45
Ultem 9085 2.2
Copper 117.
Silver 72
Unreinforced thermoplastic polymers have greater thermal expansion than metals
Material Coefficient of thermal expansion (10^-6 /°C) at room temperature (25 C)
ABS 70 to 150 (depending on ABS formulation)
Ultem 1000 65
Ultem 9085 65
Copper 17
Silver 20
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Unlike your assertion that there is no problem with the fact that a ship get a constant thrust superior to photon rocket, for constant imput power, Shawyer has clearly indicated that the thrust was decreasing as the Kinetic Energy increased. The reference is the departure speed. Of course, there is a big problem in the choice of this referential, but I shall focalize now on Shawyer's claims. I shall admit it. The reference for zero speed is so the referential of departure.
I join to my message several pages of a Theory Paper published by Shawyer.
If the engine is mounted in a spacecraft of total mass M and is allowed to accelerate from an initial velocity Vi to a final velocity Vf in time Delta t, then by equating Kinetic Energy we obtain… (see the paper)
The Fig 3.1 clearly shows that Q decrease when the speed increase. IT is approximately inversely proportional as I wrote in many messages. With a nuance around zero speed, that I did not mention in previous analysis because it was about high speeds. The inverse relation between speed and thrust can no be true around zero, else there would be an infinite thrust at zero speed ! But that is not a real problem. It would be the same for an electric car. If it is blocked, the force mesured is not infinite. For an electric car at constant power, the thrust decrease inversely to the speed, but it is also not true avec very very low speed. In fact, at low speeds, most of poser is wasted. As for the emdrive. The worst is at zero speed, all of the power of the emdrive is wasted (no Kinetic energy gained)
The figure 3.1 shows the quotient Q/Qu. So it is not significative at very low speeds, but we can see that for 1km/s we have a ratio of around 3. For 2km/s we have around 1,5. For 4km/s we have around 0,75 etc. That means that this document agrees with the fact that the thrust decrease as the speed increase.
Also, see the Fig 3.2 It shows the thrust in function of Q, for a speed of 3 km/s
As you can see, it tends to a certain value. When Q increase, the thrust is not increasing indefinitely.
In fact, when Q increase enough, near all the energy is transferred into Kinetic Energy. That is why there is an asymptote.
I made the calculus. I note F the force of the emdrive (the thrust) and V the speed in meters per second. I note W(1s) the work of the force F during one second
We have W(1s)=F*V
It makes F=W(1s)/V
The speed is 3km/s, and I shall take a work W of 1 KJ (1000 Joules)
So, it gives us F=1000/3000=0,333 N/Kw. It makes, 333 mN/Kw
333 mN/kw correspond perfectly to the asymptote on Fig 3.2 !
So, it is perfectly consistent. In this Shawyer paper, after a certain point, the thrust is inversely proportional to the speed that has been gained since the departure. The faster the ship is, the lower Q. If Q at zero speed is enormous, than almost all the energy is converted into Kinetic Energy. But there is no overunity.
So, Shawyer took into account the problem of Kinetic Energy.
If the ship had a power cord attached to the earth, all would be perfectly justified ;D and CoE verified.
But, in his IAC14 paper he forget that Thrust has to decrease with speed relatively with the departure point.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf
He made the calculus of efficiency, he found an efficiency of 0,31%. In fact Shawyer assumes that the final Kinetic Energy of the system is 1,87*10^20 joules. because he uses the non relativist formula E=1/2*mV² I found around 3.1191599*10^20 because I took 10 tons for the mass of the ship, and because at 0,67C, relativistic formula is really needed to be accurate.
But, as Shawyer calculates the imput power of the emdrive, he founds an enormous 6,04*10^20 Joules, he is happy and he considers that CoE is verified.
That is where the important point here. Shawyer admit that the Kinetic Energy in the Earth referential can not be superior to the energy spent by the ship. He just forgot to take into account his own theory in his thrust formula, and than, he made a mistake in calculating the imput power. (I calculated 6.311*10^13 Joules for 10 years of operation of the 200KwE generator, not taking into account the fact that the time goes more slowly for the ship.
Since the 2 errors compensate, and he find that no energy was gained, he his happy 8)
Now, I shall try to read more his paper, and understand what mistake make him found that his 200 KwE power plant gives him so much Energy... That is more than the energy used by humanity in a year....
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
Another option using 3D printed plastic is to use the plastic as a 'lost wax' master and cast copper into a near-net-shape which can then be cut down and polished by a CNC milling process. Would save $$$ on machining time and up-front material cost.
-
Gilbertdrive writes;
But, as Shawyer calculates the imput power of the emdrive, he founds an enormous 6,04*10^20 Joules, he is happy and he considers that CoE is verified.
That is where the important point here. Shawyer admit that the Kinetic Energy in the Earth referential can not be superior to the energy spent by the ship. He just forgot to take into account his own theory in his thrust formula, and than, he made a mistake in calculating the imput power. (I calculated 6.311*10^13 Joules for 10 years of operation of the 200KwE generator, not taking into account the fact that the time goes more slowly for the ship.
No, I don't think he forgot anything. If he did then the reviewers did too which is unlikely. Shawyer's reduction in thrust as I understand it, is due to the cavity not supporting the acceleration, not actual speeds but regardless, his energy calculation for his probe allows continuous acceleration reduced by relativistic effects.
-
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
ha, I see dr Rodal already quantified my concerns.. :)
With my 9 years of 3dprinting experience I can advise only 3 types of 3dprinting I'd consider reasonably safe :
a) Lost wax 3dprinting
As the name indicates, it involves a secondary process of metal melting and needs a metal foundry set up.
Such a casted piece would need additional machining to obtain a high reflective surface.
b) metal powder laser sintering
As far I know, only titanium and stainless steel powder sintering are commercially available.
There some experimental one_of_a_kind copper printers out there, but they work with binders and need high temperature curing, which cause disproportional dimensional shrinking.
Same problem for the surface : it would need additional machining as a sintered surface is very coarse and granular.
c) ceramic powder printing
These prints also need high temperature curing, resulting in dimensional shrinking. and they'll need glasing and then additional copper plating.
This would be my personal choice, as I own a powder printer (Zcorp510) that can be easily converted to 3Dprinting ceramics. the dimensional problem could be solved by making tests and see how much it shrinks, and then design to compensate for the shrinking
There is no easy, straightforward, cheap 3dprint solution at this moment that can handle the possible high temperatures and , let's be honest, harmful radiation.
I would NOT use any thermo-plastics for this.. really not safe...
added:
A relative new process is under development and it uses light curable ceramics (SLA 3dprinting). It too suffers a bit from dimensional shrinking. However, most of the SLA printers have a limited buildplatform...
Your frustum might not fit...
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
Another option using 3D printed plastic is to use the plastic as a 'lost wax' master and cast copper into a near-net-shape which can then be cut down and polished by a CNC milling process. Would save $$$ on machining time and up-front material cost.
If I understand you correctly, you would not need to start with a printed master. A lost wax master near enough the final dimensions needed could be fabricated from clay or ceramics at far less expense, then milled to the desired finished net-shape. Casting the copper to a close approximation before milling would save $$, compared to starting with a solid block. And if the end product were to be plated with a greater than skin depth silver, the purity of the cast copper may not even be as much of an issue.
-
Delineating competitive theories and hardware is critical for the readership imho especially for science media whom are following emdrive closely. "Closed" RF frustum cavities are the emdrive. Cannae is not and neither is Woodward's Mach effect nor nassikas. Trying to blur the lines seems disingenuous as these 8 threads have been emdrive from day 1.
Coe/com can apply anywhere and is a well discussed subtopic here. My vote has always been towards staying on topic rather than attempting to broaden an otherwise large topic. Emdrive is already a massive thread series, no need to boost it with Mach effect, nassikasn or cannae.
Like you, I'm just a part time poster here with my own point of view. Nsf staff can decide if renaming or broadening emdrive is the best thing to do.
Personal opinion: I would also like that the discussion remains focused and on topic. A big part of the success of this forum (because it is the most fruitful public Internet discussion I have ever seen) comes from the strong focus on experiments and proof of theories explaining the Emdrive.
I understand Mach effect/GR extension theories look like very likely candidates now for explaining this phenomenon, if further experiments confirm it exists, but the Emdrive is objectively a wholly different device in its form and outwardly visible mechanics in comparison with Prof. Woodward's own device; they were found/conceived in very different circumstances and both deserve independent analysis and experimentation.
Mostly because we don't really know if they really are manifestations of a same physical principle yet (this requires a lot more experimentation!) or how any or both of them will behave under new test conditions, including if they can scale from theoretically interesting to practically usable forces. Which let's remember, it's the reason this topic has found a place in this highly esteemed and reputable forum focused on space exploration, including propulsion topics.
-
....
Personal opinion: I would also like that the discussion remains focused and on topic. A big part of the success of this forum (because it is the most fruitful public Internet discussion I have ever seen) comes from the strong focus on experiments and proof of theories explaining the Emdrive.
I understand Mach effect/GR extension theories look like very likely candidates now for explaining this phenomenon, if further experiments confirm it exists, but the Emdrive is objectively a wholly different device in its form and outwardly visible mechanics in comparison with Prof. Woodward's own device; they were found/conceived in very different circumstances and both deserve independent analysis and experimentation.
Mostly because we don't really know if they really are manifestations of a same physical principle yet (this requires a lot more experimentation!) or how any or both of them will behave under new test conditions, including if they can scale from theoretically interesting to practically usable forces. Which let's remember, it's the reason this topic has found a place in this highly esteemed and reputable forum focused on space exploration, including propulsion topics.
1) Discussion of piezoelectric/electrostrictive stack experiments belong in the Woodward effect thread
2) All discussions of the EM Drive best belong in this thread, regardless of the theory being discussed. Therefore if there is a discussion of the EM Drive based on the Mach effect. it belong in this thread. This is the way it has been since thread #1. People that have been here since thread #1 may recall Paul March often repeated quote that according to him, "the Quantum Vacuum explanation and the Mach Effect explanations for the EM Drive are two sides of the same coin." Similarly, a discussion of the EM Drive as being due to the Quantum Vacuum, belongs in this thread, and not in a Quantum Vacuum thread. Similarly, a discussion of the EM Drive as being due to general relativity, belongs in this thread, and not in a general relativity thread. Ditto for any discussion of any other theoretical explanation for the EM Drive.
3) One possible question remaining would be whether a discussion about an experimenter's use of a piezoelectric stack inside an EM Drive belongs in this thread or the other. That is up for discussion, but I propose that it belongs in this thread, because the piezoelectric stack inside the EM Drive would be a small modification of the EM Drive, just like using a polymer insert inside an EM Drive.
The overarching principle governing this thread since thread #1 is that it is about the proposed device: an asymmetric electromagnetic resonant cavity that can accelerate in Deep Space solely due to electric power input . This thread has never favored a particular theory to explain its effect, nor it has ever excluded a particular theory to explain its effect. One of the main experimenters (Paul March) always considered the Mach effect one of the main explanations. Hopefully this thread can remain the way it has been since thread #1. No need to start now excluding any particular theories from discussion to explain the EM Drive effect in this thread. ;)
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames. You can use the Work-Energy Theorem in any observer frame and you'll see energy balances. I believe nature doesn't care how you generate your constant force.
...
No, we are not comparing between different frames. Go see this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1587476#msg1587476). Gilbertdrive did those calculations in a single frame the observer at rest in the frame that is the initial rest frame of the drive. The starting stored energy, and the final kinetic energy show a huge problem.
The only people who are jumping frames here are Woodward and TheTraveller. They seem to think they can treat a non-inertial frame as if it was inertial. You have the right criticism, directed at the wrong group.
As for the rest of your post
For light k= 1/c. For beamed power k= 2/c. For photon recycling k= n/c. For EmDrive k= figure of merit.
This would be for a recycling photon rocket, that uses a retroreflector on the moon (for example). Then, the energy of the photon beam (decreasing due to redshift), and the momentum/energy exchange with the moon make everything balance. Classical mechanics (with special relativity applied because of the photons) works perfectly fine here. Claims otherwise are wrong.
The emDrive is completely different because according to Shawyer it works as a closed system.
The statement "Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules" is in the ships frame or really, frames. If you claim it's also in the observer frame you are ignoring the multiplicative factor that converts between frames.
I disagree regarding your statement regarding photon recycling. In the limit as the ship approaches c, the total energy of the beam is converted to ship kinetic energy at 100% for the whole trip. Of course, the integrated beam energy approaches the limit from above, meaning more energy used that kinetic energy generated over the whole trip. So, if even one photon is used more than once during the entire trip, in the limit the beam energy will be just slightly less than the kinetic energy even accounting for redshifts.
If you think the ship will just stop accelerating at some point, please provide a physical mechanism rather than just asserting energy conservation.
-
If I understand you correctly, you would not need to start with a printed master. A lost wax master near enough the final dimensions needed could be fabricated from clay or ceramics at far less expense, then milled to the desired finished net-shape. Casting the copper to a close approximation before milling would save $$, compared to starting with a solid block. And if the end product were to be plated with a greater than skin depth silver, the purity of the cast copper may not even be as much of an issue.
If I had an educated guess, the cheapest option would be to 3dprint directly in ceramic powder using a binder. Its surface needs then to be smooth using a filler, cured, then glazed and cured again.
I have not tried it myself, but glazed ceramics can be copper plated...You'll then have a smooth surface without the need of machining.
And please, to all DIY's out there...Don't use the popular ceramic-PLA filaments as they contain way too much PLA and could melt at low temperatures. Same applies for those copper/bronze, etc filaments..
-
The statement "Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules" is in the ships frame or really, frames. If you claim it's also in the observer frame you are ignoring the multiplicative factor that converts between frames.
It is in the ship frame. I did not made the calculus of how much time was elapsed in the Earth frame. Anyway it will not change the magnitude of the problem : around 10^7. More than 10 years will have occured on earth, but not 100 million years.
-
Delineating competitive theories and hardware is critical for the readership imho especially for science media whom are following emdrive closely. "Closed" RF frustum cavities are the emdrive. Cannae is not and neither is Woodward's Mach effect nor nassikas. Trying to blur the lines seems disingenuous as these 8 threads have been emdrive from day 1.
Coe/com can apply anywhere and is a well discussed subtopic here. My vote has always been towards staying on topic rather than attempting to broaden an otherwise large topic. Emdrive is already a massive thread series, no need to boost it with Mach effect, nassikasn or cannae.
Like you, I'm just a part time poster here with my own point of view. Nsf staff can decide if renaming or broadening emdrive is the best thing to do.
Personal opinion: I would also like that the discussion remains focused and on topic. A big part of the success of this forum (because it is the most fruitful public Internet discussion I have ever seen) comes from the strong focus on experiments and proof of theories explaining the Emdrive.
I understand Mach effect/GR extension theories look like very likely candidates now for explaining this phenomenon, if further experiments confirm it exists, but the Emdrive is objectively a wholly different device in its form and outwardly visible mechanics in comparison with Prof. Woodward's own device; they were found/conceived in very different circumstances and both deserve independent analysis and experimentation.
Mostly because we don't really know if they really are manifestations of a same physical principle yet (this requires a lot more experimentation!) or how any or both of them will behave under new test conditions, including if they can scale from theoretically interesting to practically usable forces. Which let's remember, it's the reason this topic has found a place in this highly esteemed and reputable forum focused on space exploration, including propulsion topics.
Thanks for agreeing. EmDrive, as titled originally, was focused on a specific device; what Roger Shawyer developed and others picked up on which was an RF resonant cavity in the shape of a frustum. Its just that simple and uncomplicated.
Variations will occur, with differing sizes/RF frequencies, but there is a reason Cannae is not an EmDrive, it is not a frustum. There is a reason mach effect is not an EmDrive, which are blatantly obvious. Nassikas thruster, vasimir, etc., etc are not emdrive.
Regardless of the unifying theories that may exist, it should pertain to EmDrive here or be posted on a more relevant topic thread chosen from this section that NSF has generously provided: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=73.0
-
I'm not sure Cannae's pillbox cavity should be considered as different from the Emdrive. Even if the shape is different, the mechanics seem to be very similar: asymmetric resonant microwave cavities. It would add some unnecessary overhead to have to track the Cannae drive updates in some other topic IMO.
I agree with you and with Dr. Rodal that discussion around/pertaining to piezoelectric/electrostictive stack devices belongs to Woodward effect's own topic.
But any theoretical discussion trying to explain the Emdrive as described above (asymmetric resonant microwave cavities) I do think it belongs here.
-
I don't know why there isn't a separate thread for theoretical explanations leaving this one for experiments and data alone. It doesn't aid attempting to follow the theoretical discussion to have it suddenly deviating into the latest techniques on 3D printing.
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame.
There are many problems with the underlying issues, not just attempting to evaluate the acceleration including kinetic energy.
First, the claim of constant uniform acceleration has not been shown to occur, in any real sense. That is in a vacuum and sufficiently distant from a gravity well that the test has any real value.
Second, if an EmDrive that already had reached an escape velocity with respect to any associated gravity well were turned on and began to accelerate, the only frame of reference of any significance would be the frame of reference of the drive itself and kinetic energy would not be an issue, it would remain zero. Here the only question would be whether constant acceleration actually occurs. Something that no one will know with any certainty until it is attempted, or has been other wise proven false by other means.
The over unity issue I believe is a bad argument because it requires in essence, that the energy (including kinetic), of an accelerating drive be evaluated from a (essentially preferred) inertial frame of reference. While the acceleration is always from the drive's already accelerating frame.
That becomes an old and tired special relative problem (paradox, non-paradox), because it also requires that at some point the drive return to the preferred inertial frame. Remember the EmDrive's frame is accelerating. If it does not return, calculations of kinetic energy from the preferred inertial frame have no meaning or significance. The customary way that a return occurs, is if the drive makes a turn around maneuver, to head back... Which adds to the debate, an issue of whether the turn around point is really inertially consistent with the preferred frame.., and.., that one would have to assume that no attempt to match velocities on return is made. If any attempt to match velocities is part of the problem (and one remembers gravity set aside), that the starting and finishing line, is from an outbound escape velocity to an inbound escape velocity, from the drive's frame of reference it will have taken the same energy for acceleration and deceleration on each leg of the trip. Kinetic energy is not an issue in the drive's frame of reference... (setting escape velocity as the start/finish removes any gravity associated with the preferred inertial frame from the problem)
Before any of these issues become even remotely important, we need an EmDrive that works in an always on condition, and even then they will not be tested until someone puts one into space and points it, at least toward another planet and perhaps toward another star. If that ever happens, I suspect there will be a great deal of rethinking how we interpret much of what we think we know today.
-
I don't know why there isn't a separate thread for theoretical explanations leaving this one for experiments and data alone. It doesn't aid attempting to follow the theoretical discussion to have it suddenly deviating into the latest techniques on 3D printing.
Yes, that would be a more clear and logical split of the thread . It was first proposed on thread 2 or 3, but the consensus at that time was to keep experimental and theoretical discussions in the same thread. If I recall correctly the consensus was that keeping both experimental and theoretical discussions together would foster synergy, and lead to better experiments.
And conversely, better experiments, as, for example the experiments from SeeShells and Monomorphic, would lead to better examination of theoretical explanations.
SeeShells and Monomorphic, who, instead of following a single theoretical course, are pursuing different explanations in parallel: with and without polymer inserts. SeeShells also exploring interferometry changes (with her central quartz rod). Monomorphic pursuing different shapes (conical and flat sides). SeeShells pursuing numerical calculations with Meep, with Aero. Monomorphic using FEKO for calculations. SeeShells pursuing all avenues "the kitchen sink" :)
Looking back, we must admit that there has been great synergy in the past threads !
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame.
It's not wrong to compare but to equate. Some are saying power expended x time in the ships frame must equal or exceed the total kinetic energy in the earth observer frame where the ship starts from rest. And if the velocity exceeds a critical number, the acceleration just falls off to conserve energy. I used to think that but now I don't. What magic mechanism alerts the ship that it's crossed that number wrt earth frame and decreases the acceleration?
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket. That's saying an EMDrive like device should never work at all. But if it works at all, there is no feasible mechanism I am aware of to decrease acceleration for a fixed force at a fixed power.
Consider that rocket doing the first burn seen from two frames, earth and another frame moving at 0.5c in the opposite direction. From earth, the first burn gives the ship a kinetic energy of 5E5J/kg. From the other frame the kinetic energy gain of the ship is huge from that burn 1.5E11J/kg. But counting the exhaust, it's the same energy released by the ship. There are frames where the energy balance is negative and energy burn is more than kinetic energy in that frame and there are frames where energy burn is less than the ships kinetic energy in that frame. All frames agree how much energy the ship burned as actual fuel. In all frames one can use the work energy theorem and get a prefect balance between force, distance and energy. According to some, the acceleration from the burns deceases to preserve CoE in some frames, but not others. This is chaos.
-
I'm not sure Cannae's pillbox cavity should be considered as different from the Emdrive. Even if the shape is different, the mechanics seem to be very similar: asymmetric resonant microwave cavities. It would add some unnecessary overhead to have to track the Cannae drive updates in some other topic IMO.
I agree with you and with Dr. Rodal that discussion around/pertaining to piezoelectric/electrostictive stack devices belongs to Woodward effect's own topic.
But any theoretical discussion trying to explain the Emdrive as described above (asymmetric resonant microwave cavities) I do think it belongs here.
Yes, as long as a theory can pertain to EmDrive design build or test, its helpful, especially when the theory has practical engineering aspects, meaning there is a way to test the theory with an experiment/hardware. Alcubierre may never fit this criteria unfortunately.
Best I can tell Cannae is using symmetrical endplates, although they've used slotting rings internally on one of the "plates" and the frequencies are not microwave, but I haven't followed it recently. Last contact I had with Guido was to seek permission to visit during a test this summer and was politely turned down.
p.s. I think we owe a great deal to Paul at EW who's last day before retirement might have just passed. Without him, I am thoroughly convinced we would not be as far along with this concept. Hope he gets a chance to post again here and elsewhere. Hand's on practitioners are hard to come by ;) Happy "retirement" Paul!
-
The statement "Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules" is in the ships frame or really, frames. If you claim it's also in the observer frame you are ignoring the multiplicative factor that converts between frames.
It is in the ship frame. I did not made the calculus of how much time was elapsed in the Earth frame. Anyway it will not change the magnitude of the problem : around 10^7. More than 10 years will have occured on earth, but not 100 million years.
If the over unity compliant is correct, Shawyer's probe should run into that condition in under 7 seconds from launch. The Cannae Probe would end at 267 seconds. So, easy to tell.
-
If I understand you correctly, you would not need to start with a printed master. A lost wax master near enough the final dimensions needed could be fabricated from clay or ceramics at far less expense, then milled to the desired finished net-shape. Casting the copper to a close approximation before milling would save $$, compared to starting with a solid block. And if the end product were to be plated with a greater than skin depth silver, the purity of the cast copper may not even be as much of an issue.
If I had an educated guess, the cheapest option would be to 3dprint directly in ceramic powder using a binder. Its surface needs then to be smooth using a filler, cured, then glazed and cured again.
I have not tried it myself, but glazed ceramics can be copper plated...You'll then have a smooth surface without the need of machining.
And please, to all DIY's out there...Don't use the popular ceramic-PLA filaments as they contain way too much PLA and could melt at low temperatures. Same applies for those copper/bronze, etc filaments..
Thanks. Builders have had a few conversations about what a flight unit should be made of. One of our concerns was thermal coefficients as you point out. Whatever melts, deforms, delaminates or otherwise misbehaves in temperature extremes is a problem. Base metal is the safest bet; composites ramp up potential problems, but are ideal for experimentation (prototypes/engineering models/proof of concept hardware) down here on earth imo. I chose to stick with a heaver base metal even though it oxidizes. There is no coating that might degrade Q, heat up and possibly vaporize/reflow/morph into a face-eating bacteria (that's a joke). Builders have no authoritarian blueprints so are free to try their own thing within the general guidelines that Shawyer started with years ago.
-
With that warning, I was actually not referring to you, Shell or Mono. As engineers, you all know your stuff, that's obvious.
But when the EagleWorks review hits the street, I fear a lot more hobbyists with 3Dprinting dreams will have a go at building their own version of the EMdrive. Hence the warning .... maybe I should have said "to all future DIY's..."
It certainly was not the intention of belittling any of the current DIY builders.
My apology if it was perceived in such way...
-
Yes, that would be a more clear and logical split of the thread . It was first proposed on thread 2 or 3, but the consensus at that time was to keep experimental and theoretical discussions in the same thread. If I recall correctly the consensus was that keeping both experimental and theoretical discussions together would foster synergy, and lead to better experiments.
And conversely, better experiments, as, for example the experiments from SeeShells and Monomorphic, would lead to better examination of theoretical explanations.
SeeShells and Monomorphic, who, instead of following a single theoretical course, are pursuing different explanations in parallel: with and without polymer inserts. SeeShells also exploring interferometry changes (with her central quartz rod). Monomorphic pursuing different shapes (conical and flat sides). SeeShells pursuing numerical calculations with Meep, with Aero. Monomorphic using FEKO for calculations. SeeShells pursuing all avenues "the kitchen sink" :)
Looking back, we must admit that there has been great synergy in the past threads !
Besides dividing the topic would result in duplication, because everything is so new and changing that the theoretical topic would cite and include the practical results verbatim, as soon as they are released, and the experimental topic would cite the theoretical cogitations for understanding the results seen, resulting in each topic kind of mirroring each other anyway.
What I see as potential points where things must split up, is when there are missions and for-sale devices exploiting these effects for practical purposes (if that ever happens). In an analogous way to how there are separate topics for the different missions to space and the different kinds of launchers that we can see in this same forum.
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame.
It's not wrong to compare but to equate. Some are saying power expended x time in the ships frame must equal or exceed the total kinetic energy in the earth observer frame where the ship starts from rest. And if the velocity exceeds a critical number, the acceleration just falls off to conserve energy. I used to think that but now I don't. What magic mechanism alerts the ship that it's crossed that number wrt earth frame and decreases the acceleration?
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket. That's saying an EMDrive like device should never work at all. But if it works at all, there is no feasible mechanism I am aware of to decrease acceleration for a fixed force at a fixed power.
Consider that rocket doing the first burn seen from two frames, earth and another frame moving at 0.5c in the opposite direction. From earth, the first burn gives the ship a kinetic energy of 5E5J/kg. From the other frame the kinetic energy gain of the ship is huge from that burn 1.5E11J/kg. But counting the exhaust, it's the same energy released by the ship. There are frames where the energy balance is negative and energy burn is more than kinetic energy in that frame and there are frames where energy burn is less than the ships kinetic energy in that frame. All frames agree how much energy the ship burned as actual fuel. In all frames one can use the work energy theorem and get a prefect balance between force, distance and energy. According to some, the acceleration form the burns deceases to preserve CoE in some frames, but not others. This is chaos.
Can you tell who on this forum claimed that the acceleration from the burns was decreasing in some frames but no others ? I am afraid there were misunderstanding.
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
Another option using 3D printed plastic is to use the plastic as a 'lost wax' master and cast copper into a near-net-shape which can then be cut down and polished by a CNC milling process. Would save $$$ on machining time and up-front material cost.
If I understand you correctly, you would not need to start with a printed master. A lost wax master near enough the final dimensions needed could be fabricated from clay or ceramics at far less expense, then milled to the desired finished net-shape. Casting the copper to a close approximation before milling would save $$, compared to starting with a solid block. And if the end product were to be plated with a greater than skin depth silver, the purity of the cast copper may not even be as much of an issue.
For Monomorphic, I would suggest splitting the frustum down the middle "vertically" instead of horizontally and eliminate the end plates all together. Then create a 1/2 frustum mould for casting. You can then cast each half, everything is open and easy to mill and polish, and then bolt them together. It could then be cast in copper, brass, nickel, silver plated, whatever you want and they would all be nearly identical. "Mass production scheme!"
-
Gilbertdrive writes;
But, as Shawyer calculates the imput power of the emdrive, he founds an enormous 6,04*10^20 Joules, he is happy and he considers that CoE is verified.
That is where the important point here. Shawyer admit that the Kinetic Energy in the Earth referential can not be superior to the energy spent by the ship. He just forgot to take into account his own theory in his thrust formula, and than, he made a mistake in calculating the imput power. (I calculated 6.311*10^13 Joules for 10 years of operation of the 200KwE generator, not taking into account the fact that the time goes more slowly for the ship.
No, I don't think he forgot anything. If he did then the reviewers did too which is unlikely. Shawyer's reduction in thrust as I understand it, is due to the cavity not supporting the acceleration, not actual speeds but regardless, his energy calculation for his probe allows continuous acceleration reduced by relativistic effects.
It is an authority argument. "If it is published, there is no big mistake"
At least, you should concede that the reviewer who accepted the Kinetic Energy to be calculated by 1/2*mv² for a speed of 0,67C made here a mistake, since the relativist formula was needed. The aim was to calculate a ratio that is around 0,31. so the relativist formula was making a real difference.
Also, the main point of my intervention was to show that in Shawyer theory paper, the thrust is supposed to decrease as acceleration from the time frame of the departure of the ship was increasing, so that CoE is verified. Are you convinced by the extracts that I have given, or do you think that, is this paper theory, the force is supposed to be constant ?
Here, the question is not what is true, it is what Shawyer is saying. Once we will agree on what Shawyer is saying in his theory paper, we can go to the other debate.
-
I've been working on spherical end-plate emdrive meshes that can be 3d printed or CNC machined. Not a lot of 3d printing shops can print something the size of the side walls in a ~2.4Ghz TE013 frustum, so for one option, I have split the side walls in two.
I can print the entire 3-piece frustum in ASA for $670. And then copper/silver electroplate the ASA. I still need to add bolt holes, but haven't decided on a bolt size yet. :'(
Monomorphic,
Instead of pursuing 3d printed or CNC milled spherical endplates, have you considered creating the endplates yourself, using a method similar to this?
http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/JoyOfMirrorMaking/Intro.html
If a pitch lap was good enough for Newton to create the spherical mirror for his reflecting telescope, it might serve you well, too. :-)
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
This has been discussed before. Indeed, quite a while ago I suggested that the ideal cavity would be constructed the way that most precision waveguides are constructed. A master is made out of machinable wax. The wax master is electroplated with just about anything you care to use. The wax is removed by solvent or melting.
The resulting object has an interior surface finish effectively equal to the surface finish of the wax master. These days, that finish can be on the order of nanometers. If you'd like your frustum to be very conductive yet well protected from oxidation, the wax master would first get a gold flash, followed by silver for conductivity, followed by copper for mechanical strength.
This is a common industrial process. While you're at it, an earlier post of mine suggested making the skin effect impedance of the frustum equal to the injection impedance. The walls would be plated with a relatively high resistance alloy like nichrome. If the skin effect impedance matched the injection impedance ("free space"), then the walls would be effectively invisible, from the microwave field perspective. Perhaps this is why Shawyer's flying cars haven't materialized with superconductive frustums.
A matched wall impedance would lower the Q, but would do to evanescent waves....? I suspect Q is less important than evanescent wave transport THROUGH the walls. With a very high Q, and extreme impedance mismatch, there is NO wall transport. With match, who knows? No one has ever tried, except perhaps, by accident, with the Emdrive. To date, microwave engineering has either been trying to keep all of the energy inside (wavequide), or all the energy transmitted (antenna).
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
Or they could be machined from large solid blocks of almost anything. Almost anything can be coated with almost anything. Copper on baby shoes, nickel on wood, gold on plastic, plutonium on niobium...there are companies that do this stuff all the time. Just saying.
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
(https://j.gifs.com/v23zKL.gif)
https://youtu.be/0RY0cjSUPGg?t=46
-
With that warning, I was actually not referring to you, Shell or Mono. As engineers, you all know your stuff, that's obvious.
But when the EagleWorks review hits the street, I fear a lot more hobbyists with 3Dprinting dreams will have a go at building their own version of the EMdrive. Hence the warning .... maybe I should have said "to all future DIY's..."
It certainly was not the intention of belittling any of the current DIY builders.
My apology if it was perceived in such way...
Didn't think that at all. At one time I thought NSF would be a great place for DIY tips, techniques but decided to back off of that philosophy. However, your inputs are still in that spirit and am glad to see it.
My guess is the world will soon see a rash of prospective EmDrive builders. Guidance, especially towards safety is needed. Active posters can pick up that banner if they wish. Back to inactive for me...I've had my fill for a while - Cheers, Dave
-
A two piece construction is also possible. This also saves a little off the 3d printing cost if the seam is in the middle.
Middle seam: ASA: $620, ABS: $500
Big End seam: ASA: $825, ABS: $660
Mono,
there are some issues with ABS 3dprinting as ABS tends to warp a lot. (I own a small 3dprinting shop).
Personally, I have not used ASA yet, but from reports I'm reading it has a superior warping resistance and seems to handle extreme conditions better.
Just make sure it doesn't cool off to rapidly or you'll get "splitting"...
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/testing-asa-3d-printing-filament-weather-resistant-alternative-abs-62785/
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a common thermoplastic polymer with very low glass transition temperature (approximately 105 °C (221 °F)).
In general, making the EM Drive walls with a thermoplastic polymer will present other problems, besides warping.
We all know about the thermal effects in the EM Drive by now. The thermal conductivity and the thermal diffusivity of these polymers is several orders of magnitude lower than that of copper. So even if you have an internal thin layer of copper or silver, the thermoplastic polymer will act as an insulator. It is better to have a solid wall of a material (like copper or silver) with high thermal conductivity and high thermal diffusivity.
The warping is a consequence of the low modulus of Elasticity of unreinforced thermoplastic polymers as compared to metals like copper and silver. NASA Eagleworks used FRP wich is a composite where glass-fibers reinforces a thermoset epoxy to provide a higher modulus of elasticity.
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
(https://j.gifs.com/v23zKL.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RY0cjSUPGg?t=46
I have used the spinning process manufacturing cavity
-
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Correct.
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
Edit: Updated report because originally on page 3 I used M for both mass and for mega (10^6), thus may cause confusion. I updated the report so that now M is only for mass.
Update: I updated the Woodward.pdf to Woodward_updated.pdf (below the screenshot); Updated the section about the rocket equation (added discussion of relative speed of the propellant). Now it is related to rocket equation we saw elsewhere.
Update2: Added Woodward_updated2.pdf analysis of the rocket energy for the rocket equation at the end of section III. Link is at the end of this post.
-
I'm also getting a quote for CNC milling. We will see what that comes to as it seems like the parts would need to be milled from large solid blocks of copper - which is extremely expensive - thousands of dollars each.
If I use ASA and print 1cm thick walls and then electroplate a thick copper coat of 3mm after etching, then polish down to 2mm, it should be rigid enough. Though I think the process of etching the ASA, and electroplating 3mm of copper would be a difficult undertaking as a DIY.
I have used the spinning process manufacturing cavity
Idea: Here's a cheap and sandy way to DIY and make spherical end plates. Green sand casting. http://foundry101.com/index.htm (http://foundry101.com/index.htm)
You can use the 3d printed plastic part to create a template to impress into the sand. Then do a pour and polish. A precision finish would be faster by CNC. You could cast the sphere convex or concave, for each end cap. You may even find a foundry to cast these cheap for you, using your 3d printed template to save time.
I think a better finish can be had if you use finer grained sand, or even clay. It's not expensive like making a mould for casting.
-
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Correct.
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
These thrusters require "damping" to operate. If there is no damping, there is no thrust. Damping is a resistive loss of power. So if energy is put into it, and energy is lost to generate thrust, then there is no way it can be an over-unity device.
-
...
It's not wrong to compare but to equate. Some are saying power expended x time in the ships frame must equal or exceed the total kinetic energy in the earth observer frame where the ship starts from rest. And if the velocity exceeds a critical number, the acceleration just falls off to conserve energy. I used to think that but now I don't. What magic mechanism alerts the ship that it's crossed that number wrt earth frame and decreases the acceleration?
...
The power expended x time in the ship frame is not really jumping frames, but I get why you think it is.
What we are calculating is how much energy is in the big battery attached to the drive in the initial rest frame before it starts accelerating. When the battery is drained in the final moving ship frame (assume to 0), the battery also will have 0 potential energy as determined in the initial rest frame. (At relativistic velocities, there are some caveats, since the field of a moving point charge is not uniform in all directions, but for the example Gilbertdrive was looking at this would be a factor of 3*, when the failure of CoE is a factor on the order of 10000000.)
The next question about the magic mechanism is one you would have to ask one of the people who support a theory like Shawyer's. Theories like the Mach effect, degradable QV, etc. provide effective propellant interactions, or preferred frames that allow CoE to be conserved. Not being able to explain how the theory matches with CoE is one of the many problems with Shawyer's theory.
*the relativistic effect on potential energy is non-trivial, energy stored in the fields, radiation reaction, etc. has to be considered, and the field dependence with angle relative to motion means that 2 equal charges a fixed distance apart could have different stored energy depending on their angle relative to the direction of motion, but length contraction probably cancels this. I may work out the details for myself if I have time, but at most it should just be a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2 / c^2).
-
It is an authority argument. "If it is published, there is no big mistake"
At least, you should concede that the reviewer who accepted the Kinetic Energy to be calculated by 1/2*mv² for a speed of 0,67C made here a mistake, since the relativist formula was needed. The aim was to calculate a ratio that is around 0,31. so the relativist formula was making a real difference.
Also, the main point of my intervention was to show that in Shawyer theory paper, the thrust is supposed to decrease as acceleration from the time frame of the departure of the ship was increasing, so that CoE is verified. Are you convinced by the extracts that I have given, or do you think that, is this paper theory, the force is supposed to be constant ?
Here, the question is not what is true, it is what Shawyer is saying. Once we will agree on what Shawyer is saying in his theory paper, we can go to the other debate.
I have no idea how Shawyer's 2015 Acta Astronautica paper has passed review.
(To read the formulas below you'll have invoke your built-in latex interpreter...)
The efficiency calculation (Eqs. 9-13) is completely pointless and the efficiency as defined in Eq. 13 is always 1. Basically (for the sake of simplicity in a non-relativistic case) Eq. (9) is the well known formula P=Tv, where P is power, T is thrust (force) and v is the spacecraft velocity (and we'll use a reference frame where the spacecraft starts at rest, so v(0)=0). Then energy used for accelerating the spacecraft by time t_a is E_in(t_a)=\int_0^t_a P(t) dt = \int_0^t_a T(t)v(t) dt. Inserting T=ma (m is spacecraft mass, a is its acceleration) we get E_in(t_a)=\int_0^t_a ma(t)v(t) dt = m\int_0^t_a d/dt[v(t)] v(t) dt = m/2 \int_0^t_a d/dt[v(t)^2] dt = (m/2)v(t_a)^2=E_k. Shawyer's Eq. 10 for E_in expresses this using the 'average' velocity, which he never seems to define. In case of time-varying thrust T in Eq. 10 should also be some sort of average, but in the paper it seems that T is assumed constant, which means that v_{av} = v(t_a)/2 (Shawyer uses V_T for v(t_a). You can check that in that case Eq. 13 yields 1 after you use v(t_a)=a t_a=T/m t_a and plug in the expression for thrust from Eq. 8 ).
So, shockingly, classical mechanics seems to be consistent: if an object is accelerated with a given power, at the end its kinetic energy is the same as energy used for accelerating the object. However, in Shawyer's theory 'mechanical power' P_{mech} comes from electrical (microwave) power P_0 through mystically energy multiplying resonating cavity, as shown in Eq. 8. To really calculate the efficiency one should use E_{in}=t_a P_0 (possibly with some correction for efficiency in converting to microwave power). With high enough Q, it's easy to get over-unity efficiency.
The reason Shawyer gets e_{to}=0.363 instead of 1 for his 'spaceplane' seems to be that numbers in Table 4 are not consistent. If you plug numbers in the Table to his formulas, acceleration becomes about 16.5 m s^-2 and the final velocity after 1300 seconds about 21.5 km/s. His 7.8 km/s apparently comes from the text, where he discusses the mission profile with acceleration 6 m s^-2; however, that acceleration is not consistent with the parameters in the table.
There's of course the caveat that I may have misunderstood Shawyer's paper completely. That is possible because the paper is very confusingly written and full of errors (typos in equations, undefined symbols etc.).
-
...
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
That was a nice report.
Just to clarify one point, the Mach effect has been explained in other places in a way where the device can exchange momentum and energy with distant objects. The figure of merit equation would not necessarily apply.
This is not a disproof of the emDrive or Mach effect, just a conclusion that Woodward's paper is wrong, and propellantless thrusters that claim a constant Force/Power ratio greater than 1/c break CoE.
-
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket.
It's not about "nature conspiring to prevent this", it's about math... assuming that CoE holds. One has to take into account not just the kinetic energy of the rocket, but also the kinetic energy of the propellant (which decreases since it's being ejected in the opposite direction if you compare it to an earlier moment when it was moving together with the rocket). The rocket has to be constantly losing mass (i.e. propellant), and if you calculate the total energy over time, it all adds up and no "over-unity" occurs. The rocket does not know when to stop accelerating, it slows down naturally because it's losing mass/propellant. If there is no propellant and the rocket is not losing mass, "over-unity" is an obvious consequence, unless there is a way for it to "steal" energy from some unknown field.
-
[r they could be machined from large solid blocks of almost anything. Almost anything can be coated with almost anything. Copper on baby shoes, nickel on wood, gold on plastic, plutonium on niobium...there are companies that do this stuff all the time. Just saying.
Dissimilar metals in contact with each other are subject to chemical reactions. The most obvious conductors are a result of various aqueous solutions. I know, because I have a metallic hip replacement where the interaction between a titanium stub coupled with a chromium/cobalt stem has been releasing elemental cobalt and chromium into my body to the detriment of nerve fibers.
I don't know if anyone has ever studied what interactions might occur in the presence of high-level microwave radiation and the associated heat might induce. Someone might want to investigate that.
-
With that warning, I was actually not referring to you, Shell or Mono. As engineers, you all know your stuff, that's obvious.
But when the EagleWorks review hits the street, I fear a lot more hobbyists with 3Dprinting dreams will have a go at building their own version of the EMdrive. Hence the warning .... maybe I should have said "to all future DIY's..."
It certainly was not the intention of belittling any of the current DIY builders.
My apology if it was perceived in such way...
Didn't think that at all. At one time I thought NSF would be a great place for DIY tips, techniques but decided to back off of that philosophy. However, your inputs are still in that spirit and am glad to see it.
My guess is the world will soon see a rash of prospective EmDrive builders. Guidance, especially towards safety is needed. Active posters can pick up that banner if they wish. Back to inactive for me...I've had my fill for a while - Cheers, Dave
As long as it doesn't see a rash of ill prepared people injuring themselves playing around with microwaves.
-
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop?
Correct.
In the ship's frame, the only one which matters, the energy needed to alter velocity in relation to some desired destination is always the same as the ship's mass does not alter. Well not so much as it matters.
BTW Jim Woodward makes a good comment:
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed
physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple
mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake.
But it didn’t.
So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The
purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
Interesting paper. I glanced at it and found the math was within my ability. So I printed it out to take a closer look. I think I will be able to find something wrong in his argument. But I may not be able to. Whatever the result is, I will write a swift report about my findings.
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
Edit: Updated report because originally on page 3 I used M for both mass and for mega (10^6), thus may cause confusion. I updated the report so that now M is only for mass.
Nice paper. I couldn't help but laugh however when I came across: "the ejected propellant mush".
-
...
a) Lost wax 3dprinting
As the name indicates, it involves a secondary process of metal melting and needs a metal foundry set up.
Such a casted piece would need additional machining to obtain a high reflective surface.
...
This has been discussed before. Copper has to be cast in a vacuum. Fine Silver (999) is relatively easy to cast but the walls would have to be quite thick. Otherwise there would be voids. Another problem with the lost wax process is it is not practical to cast a hollow container where the interior plaster mold is not supported at all. I think the most practical method of building a Copper or Fine Silver fustrum is to spin-form it on a lathe. Second to that would be to roll out a cone pattern and join the two sides with a riveted strip, using Copper rivets. That will ensure electrical continuity at the seam. The end caps can also be screwed together, using Copper screws. A while back someone was in touch with a Copper cookware manufacturer who could do this type of work. It requires specialized tools to get a finished article with smooth surfaces.
-
....
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
Edit: Updated report because originally on page 3 I used M for both mass and for mega (10^6), thus may cause confusion. I updated the report so that now M is only for mass.
Ok, I have some questions about this report. First off I mostly agree with the last section of it. However, Part II through III are problematic. Specifically, after reading your Part II and re reading the section in the Woodward Paper I believe you are both either talking past each other or saying the same thing. As you said in the section your referencing he is describing the behavior of a Simple Mechanical system. The difference is that at the end of that section in woodward's Paper the point he was trying to make was
...
How then do some argue that in this simple system – and METs in particular – energy conservation is violated?
Simple. By doing something stupid and wrong. In particular, by taking the “figure of merit” of a thrust (force) generator – by definition, the number of Newtons of thrust produced per watt of input power to the thrust generator – and treating it as a dynamical equation that can be used to calculate the energy input to a motor that acts for
some length of time; that is:
...
which seems to be the same thing your saying here
...
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a constant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF constant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equation
(15).
Who proposed “figure of merit”? It might be Mr. Shawyer, who invented that for his propellant-less EmDrive, similar to the MET in propellant-less sense. the critics’ logic is that since Mr. Shawyer’s figure of merit leads to contradiction, his theory is wrong. So does MET if it has constant force with constant power. The simple mechanical systems as shown in Professor Woodward’s equation (1) through (9) is compatible with CoE ...
...
The only issue I have with your version of the statement is it seems like you are attributing how the figure of merit equation is used to Woodward. When really all Woodward is doing is illustrating why you should not define/use the figre of merit equation in the manner you both described.
As for
The simple mechanical systems as shown in Professor Woodward’s equation (1) through (9) is compatible with CoE, but EmDrive and MET are not.
I think this gets as closer to the true problem with this paper than the rest of what is included in the report. Which is that entire section you refer to in part II of your report is only talkiing about Simple mechanical systems. Nothing else. HE does occasionally mention MET's but only as an example of a Simple Mechanical system. Which brings me to my point. The main criticism that should be leveled at this Paper is that it asks the reader to accept a pretty big assumption and proceeds from that point forward. That assumption is
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake. But it didn’t. So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
That underlined portion basically asks you to assume that a MET is a simple mechanical system. Now whether or not your accept this to be true I think depends on whether or not you understand and agree with of all the work Woodward, Fearn, and Wasner have put into explaining his theory behind how a MET works. There is nothing in the Paper that covers how a MET works at all. Instead, Woodward assumes, for the sake of the paper, that a MET is a Simple Mechanical device and proceeds to refute the idea that Simple Mechanical Devices can create over unity.
As for Part III. The reason equation (16) is included is stated pretty clearly in the paragraph immediately before the equation is stated. With its purpose being to guide a discussion about how to correctly calculate momentum conservation for a rocket. Which it looks like you replicated also. The only difference is Woodward spends a few sentences talking about the difference between the force represented by v dM/dt and the force represented by Ma. This particular exposition seems superfluous but when a device governed by ME is operating it is claimed that the v dM/dt term in that equation can be taken to be zero. It is the reason why he uses this example
A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth (which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls?
That pile of sand is meant to represent the fluctuating mass in a device governed by ME. Now I have had a spirited discussion with WallOfWolfStreet about this and as far as I can tell at this point in time you either agree that the Mass Fluctuations that take place within the Fluctuating Mass component of a device governed by ME happen exactly in the way necessary to allow the v dM/dt force term to be set to 0 or you need to spend some time digging into the GR Derivation of Mach Effects and or the Hoyle Narliakr Theory of Gravitation. Personally, that stuff is a bit above my pay grade currently so I will settle for experimental results agreeing with the thrust values predicted by the thrust equations derived from both the GR and HN Theory; oh yeah and replications of said experimental results.
Finally, Part III. I agree with the motivation of Part III but that's only because the paper does what I consider a piss poor job of actually talking about how a MET is supposed to work. It pretty much assumes the reader does. After doing some digging of my own I actually wonder if the reason the explanation at the end of Woodwards Paper could be valid is because a device governed by ME from a mechanical perspective has the ability to control/oscillate the Mass of one of its components, which is constantly being accelerated and decelerated repeatedly. To avoid me rehashing my thoughts on this please see
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588451#msg1588451 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588451#msg1588451)
-
...
a) Lost wax 3dprinting
As the name indicates, it involves a secondary process of metal melting and needs a metal foundry set up.
Such a casted piece would need additional machining to obtain a high reflective surface.
...
This has been discussed before. Copper has to be cast in a vacuum. Fine Silver (999) is relatively easy to cast but the walls would have to be quite thick. Otherwise there would be voids. Another problem with the lost wax process is it is not practical to cast a hollow container where the interior plaster mold is not supported at all. I think the most practical method of building a Copper or Fine Silver fustrum is to spin-form it on a lathe. Second to that would be to roll out a cone pattern and join the two sides with a riveted strip, using Copper rivets. That will ensure electrical continuity at the seam. The end caps can also be screwed together, using Copper screws. A while back someone was in touch with a Copper cookware manufacturer who could do this type of work. It requires specialized tools to get a finished article with smooth surfaces.
This is my first post in the EM drive section. This post is for those looking to make an EM drive themselves.
I'm a DIY'er who works with electroplating materials for a living, and from what I am reading going back to post 1005, there are quite a few methods being considered here for how to make the frustum and endplates. Maybe I missed it, but are there any specifications that are agreed upon for what the end product ( EM Drive cavity) needs to meet?
1. What material properties are needed on the surface vs. the bulk of the EM drive?
2. Inner & outer surface smoothness ( RA)?
3. Frustum & endplate wall thickness?
4. Tolerance for oxidation/sulfidation anywhere on the EM drive?
5. Electrical continuity of the joints of the endplate, & possibly frustum sections if making them in sections?
6. Tolerance for imperfection in the conical section of the frustum? how much can it vary and still get consistent resonance?
Since the first pics of the EM drive were shown, I've thought of ways to make it using methods I see in the metal finishing industries I am familiar with. Most of what I have seen in the RF industry was done by making mandrels from machined aluminum, which was then electroplated.
The 3-D printed wax methods also have some promise, however metallizing those substrates to the thickness specs. being mentioned is going to be expensive and difficult. Casting may also be a valid path.
Has anyone considered CNC metal spinning? This may be ideally suited for making the EM drive frustum and endplates. Copper can also be spun with this method, negating the need to electroform thick walls. CNC Metal spinning should allow a very repeatable & standardized frustum & endplates to be made. These parts will be pretty close to a finished form. If needed, they could be put on a lathe to smooth out the inner surface of the frustum. Once that is done, there are common electroplated materials that can tailor the surface properties. You can then selectively deposit resistive coating like Ni-W, or very smooth & low resistance Cu-Ni-Au. I would also attach the endplates to the frustum by electroplating a tin or tin alloy solder onto the joining surfaces, and reflow it in an oven vs using bolts.
-
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket.
In fact, there is no need to use directly the CoE principle. The newtonian mechanics complies with CoE. So we can solve this problem by using Newtonian mechanics, and the result will always respect CoE. The fact that it is not pratical to do the rocket is not a theoretical problem. Since newtonian mechanics are consistent with CoE, we can not even find a theoretical counter example.
So, I propose to analyse your example, and detail why it does not work.
First, it is true that the same burn will give the same acceleration relatively to different inertial reference frames if we are in Newtonian Mechanic (not relativist effect). But that needs of course to have ships of the same mass. So, it was right to use this principle same burn/same acceleration for 2 identical ships going at different speeds from earth, but you can not use it for comparing 2 successive burns of the same ship. The second burn give more acceleration that the first one, since the ship is lighter. At the same time, when the ship is lighter, for the same speed, it's Kinetic energy is lower.
First, if each burn realeased 5E7 J/kg, the total energy released would be 5E7*E4=5E11, not 5E10.
I perfectly understand your analysis, and your assertion. But you have taken impossible data. The impossible data is… the fact that 1% of the Energy was given to the ship, while 10 000 burns are possible.
If 10 000 burns are possible, each burn uses less than the mass of the ship divided by 10 000.
I shall suppose that the first burn has a perfect efficiency. It means that all the energy spent goes in motion, not in heat.
I shall suppose that the mass ejected during the burn is the mass of the ship divided by 10 000, forgive me, only 9 999 burns are possible, and I shall suppose that the mass of the empty ship itself is 1/10 000. after the first burn, assuming it is a instantaneous burn, like if the ship shot a bullet, the speed of the ejected mass will be of 999,9m/s and the speed of the ship will be 0,1m/s in the earth referential.
I call mb the mass ejected during a burn
It means that the Kinetic Energy of the ship will be Ks=½*mb*9999*(0,1)^2 when the Kinetic Energy of the expulsed mass will be Ke=½*mb*(999,9)^2
I calculate the ratio Ks/Ke=(9999*(0,1)^2)/(999,9)^2=0.00010001
It is around 10^-4
That means that only a little more than 0,01% of the spent energy goes to the Kinetic Energy of the ship. Most of the Energy goes to the expulsed mass.
That is why expulsing few mass at high speed is not energy efficient. That is why even a perfect ionic motors would not be great for pushing a car. That is also why the amelioration of ionic needs more and more energy. If we send the ions 10 times faster, we get 10 times more acceleration for the ship, but it needs 100 times more energy. So, the same acceleration needs 10 times more energy !
The lighter the ship is, the more efficient will be the burn. The 9999th burn will expell as much mass that the remaining mass on the ship, and the half of the Energy spend goes to the Kinetic Energy of the ship, but the ship is loosing at the same time half of it's mass, so it divided by 2 the Kinetic Energy of the ship.
At the end, the Ship will have a very few Kinetic Energy. Most of Kinetic Energy will belong to the expulsed propellant.
I can detail more, and make the calculus of how much Kinetic energy the ship has at the end, but for that, you need to detail your ship.
-mass of the ship
-mass ejected for each burn
-
The statement "Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules" is in the ships frame or really, frames. If you claim it's also in the observer frame you are ignoring the multiplicative factor that converts between frames.
It is in the ship frame. I did not made the calculus of how much time was elapsed in the Earth frame. Anyway it will not change the magnitude of the problem : around 10^7. More than 10 years will have occured on earth, but not 100 million years.
If the over unity compliant is correct, Shawyer's probe should run into that condition in under 7 seconds from launch. The Cannae Probe would end at 267 seconds. So, easy to tell.
Easy to tell...if these probes were constructed, yes ;D
But they exist only on paper for now.
-
Thank you! I will try to answer your concerns.
....
As promised, I wrote a short report. The attached picture is a screen short of the first page of the report. The whole report is also attached to this email. As meberbs, I now think Professor Woodward does not have credit in his theory.
Edit: Updated report because originally on page 3 I used M for both mass and for mega (10^6), thus may cause confusion. I updated the report so that now M is only for mass.
Ok, I have some questions about this report. First off I mostly agree with the last section of it. However, Part II through III are problematic. Specifically, after reading your Part II and re reading the section in the Woodward Paper I believe you are both either talking past each other or saying the same thing. As you said in the section your referencing he is describing the behavior of a Simple Mechanical system. The difference is that at the end of that section in woodward's Paper the point he was trying to make was
Probably we were largely talking about the same thing in my Section II and his part 1. The difference might be that he contributed "figure of merit" to critics but I contributed it to Mr. Shawyer whose EmDrive shares largely the same features with his MET. Both being propellant-less. Both has limited input power but unlimited output power. The critics, by agreeing with my expressing of FS=1/2F*at^2, the energy generated by external force, agreed with physics; but Mr. Shawyer and Professor Woodward did not agree with physics by insisting limited input power and unlimited output power.
...
How then do some argue that in this simple system – and METs in particular – energy conservation is violated?
Simple. By doing something stupid and wrong. In particular, by taking the “figure of merit” of a thrust (force) generator – by definition, the number of Newtons of thrust produced per watt of input power to the thrust generator – and treating it as a dynamical equation that can be used to calculate the energy input to a motor that acts for
some length of time; that is:
...
which seems to be the same thing your saying here
Agreed. The difference is that he said the problem was caused by the critics by defining fixed input power; but I think it is his and Mr. Shawyer's problem.
...
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a constant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF constant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equation
(15).
Who proposed “figure of merit”? It might be Mr. Shawyer, who invented that for his propellant-less EmDrive, similar to the MET in propellant-less sense. the critics’ logic is that since Mr. Shawyer’s figure of merit leads to contradiction, his theory is wrong. So does MET if it has constant force with constant power. The simple mechanical systems as shown in Professor Woodward’s equation (1) through (9) is compatible with CoE ...
...
The only issue I have with your version of the statement is it seems like you are attributing how the figure of merit equation is used to Woodward. When really all Woodward is doing is illustrating why you should not define/use the figre of merit equation in the manner you both described.
As for
The simple mechanical systems as shown in Professor Woodward’s equation (1) through (9) is compatible with CoE, but EmDrive and MET are not.
I think this gets as closer to the true problem with this paper than the rest of what is included in the report. Which is that entire section you refer to in part II of your report is only talkiing about Simple mechanical systems. Nothing else. HE does occasionally mention MET's but only as an example of a Simple Mechanical system. Which brings me to my point. The main criticism that should be leveled at this Paper is that it asks the reader to accept a pretty big assumption and proceeds from that point forward. That assumption is
Contrary to this “over-unity” assumption, this argument is based on flawed physics and, consequently, wrong. The fact that the argument applies to all simple mechanical systems (in addition to METs) should have alerted critics to their mistake. But it didn’t. So, a dumb idea that should have been quickly buried is still with us. The purpose of this essay is to carry out a long overdue burial.
That underlined portion basically asks you to assume that a MET is a simple mechanical system. Now whether or not your accept this to be true I think depends on whether or not you understand and agree with of all the work Woodward, Fearn, and Wasner have put into explaining his theory behind how a MET works. There is nothing in the Paper that covers how a MET works at all. Instead, Woodward assumes, for the sake of the paper, that a MET is a Simple Mechanical device and proceeds to refute the idea that Simple Mechanical Devices can create over unity.
He thought MET belongs to Simple Mechanical system but I think it is more close to the EmDrive, being with fixed force for fixed input power.
As for Part III. The reason equation (16) is included is stated pretty clearly in the paragraph immediately before the equation is stated. With its purpose being to guide a discussion about how to correctly calculate momentum conservation for a rocket. Which it looks like you replicated also. The only difference is Woodward spends a few sentences talking about the difference between the force represented by v dM/dt and the force represented by Ma. This particular exposition seems superfluous but when a device governed by ME is operating it is claimed that the v dM/dt term in that equation can be taken to be zero. It is the reason why he uses this example
A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth (which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls?
That pile of sand is meant to represent the fluctuating mass in a device governed by ME. Now I have had a spirited discussion with WallOfWolfStreet about this and as far as I can tell at this point in time you either agree that the Mass Fluctuations that take place within the Fluctuating Mass component of a device governed by ME happen exactly in the way necessary to allow the v dM/dt force term to be set to 0 or you need to spend some time digging into the GR Derivation of Mach Effects and or the Hoyle Narliakr Theory of Gravitation. Personally, that stuff is a bit above my pay grade currently so I will settle for experimental results agreeing with the thrust values predicted by the thrust equations derived from both the GR and HN Theory; oh yeah and replications of said experimental results.
The paragraph immediately before equation (16) ("I won’t attempt an answer to...") is one that I totally agree with. I think he talked about some general principles of mechanics and maybe unrelated to equation (16).
By using the sand car example, did he mean that his MET rocket can fluctuate its mass, just like by releasing an astronaut, and then taking him back in again? This is beyond my pay grade too.
Finally, Part III. I agree with the motivation of Part III but that's only because the paper does what I consider a piss poor job of actually talking about how a MET is supposed to work. It pretty much assumes the reader does. After doing some digging of my own I actually wonder if the reason the explanation at the end of Woodwards Paper could be valid is because a device governed by ME from a mechanical perspective has the ability to control/oscillate the Mass of one of its components, which is constantly being accelerated and decelerated repeatedly. To avoid me rehashing my thoughts on this please see
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588451#msg1588451 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588451#msg1588451)
Thanks for the link.
-
Probably we were largely talking about the same thing in my Section II and his part 1. The difference might be that he contributed "figure of merit" to critics but I contributed it to Mr. Shawyer whose EmDrive shares largely the same features with his MET. Both being propellant-less. Both has limited input power but unlimited output power. The critics, by agreeing with my expressing of FS=1/2F*at^2, the energy generated by external force, agreed with physics; but Mr. Shawyer and Professor Woodward did not agree with physics by insisting limited input power and unlimited output power.
True about Mr. Shawyer, but it depends where. In his theory paper 9.4 he clearly statues that the thrust is decreasing with the speed in the departure referential. But elsewhere, he forget that ???
-
By using the sand car example, did he mean that his MET rocket can fluctuate its mass, just like by releasing an astronaut, and then taking him back in again? This is beyond my pay grade too.
That is indeed the whole point of Mach Effect Thrusters, or METs. According to Woodward's transient mass equation:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
A mass fluctuation arises in an object when it absorbs energy (like a capacitor) as it undergoes proper acceleration.
-
By using the sand car example, did he mean that his MET rocket can fluctuate its mass, just like by releasing an astronaut, and then taking him back in again? This is beyond my pay grade too.
That is indeed the whole point of Mach Effect Thrusters, or METs. According to Woodward's transient mass equation:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
A mass fluctuation arises in an object when it absorbs energy (like a capacitor) as it undergoes proper acceleration.
I agree that a capacitor can increase its mass by absorbing energy, because this is predicted by Einstein's mass-energy equation. However, the energy the capacitor absorbed is taken from the battery or other sorts of energy sources. By losing that same amount energy, assuming 100% efficiency, the battery's mass decreases with the same amount. If the battery is on board of the same rocket, how can that help?
-
The Mach Effect Thruster has always bothered me as the classical analogue clearly results in no thrust.
I can imagine something similar to a metronome fixed to a spaceship, with a sliding weight that moves up and down the pendulum depending on the direction of the swing. Obviously, this will always result in a net 0 movement in any direction for the spaceship. Acknowledging that electrons and the weight are different animals and my knowledge of physics at the level of the electron is laughably small, I can't see how it could possibly work.
-
By using the sand car example, did he mean that his MET rocket can fluctuate its mass, just like by releasing an astronaut, and then taking him back in again? This is beyond my pay grade too.
That is indeed the whole point of Mach Effect Thrusters, or METs. According to Woodward's transient mass equation:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
A mass fluctuation arises in an object when it absorbs energy (like a capacitor) as it undergoes proper acceleration.
I agree that a capacitor can increase its mass by absorbing energy, because this is predicted by Einstein's mass-energy equation. However, the energy the capacitor absorbed is taken from the battery or other sorts of energy sources. By losing that same amount energy, assuming 100% efficiency, the battery's mass decreases with the same amount. If the battery is on board of the same rocket, how can that help?
Because the mass fluctuation effect is not the same as a capacitor's mass changing on charging and discharging. If it was then Nembo Buldrini would not have recorded a null test result for the MET Woodward gave him to test in Tajmar's lab. If it was then the most recent experimental null results (Section 2.1 (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-MachII.pdf)) would have shown thrust.
The Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation is described as being a side effect of having to communicate with the rest of the mass in the distant universe via a similar advanced/retarded wave mechanism as the one used in Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, which is used to explain why that gravitational inertial interaction with matter many light years away can be done instantaneously.
With that said, I think any criticism of the third part of Woodward's Paper first has to explain why the Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation, as described by Woodward, either doesn't exist; or could not have the behavior described.
Personally, I believe if one of the components in a device governed by Mach Effects is actually altering its Mass periodically. Then the Kinetic energy for that component also varies. If the Kinetic energy for that component is varying then I don't think it is automatically invalid for Woodward to make the assumptions made in what you call part 3 of your report.
-
The Mach Effect Thruster has always bothered me as the classical analogue clearly results in no thrust.
I can imagine something similar to a metronome fixed to a spaceship, with a sliding weight that moves up and down the pendulum depending on the direction of the swing. Obviously, this will always result in a net 0 movement in any direction for the spaceship. Acknowledging that electrons and the weight are different animals and my knowledge of physics at the level of the electron is laughably small, I can't see how it could possibly work.
The problem is we keep treating the capacitor analogy as if it is an accurate representation of how the mass fluctuates in a device governed by ME. the capacitor analogy is an oversimplification meant to illustrate that the mass is fluctuating not how the mass fluctuates in the first place. It's the same reason supporters end up talking about Rockets. Every time one is used you will notice a bunch of constraints put on the behavior of the rocket. I believe this is being done because like a Rocket the fluctuating mass component changes its mass. However, unlike a rocket that mass is not lost forever. It is my understanding that it is made to fluctuate in the following manner; when the ship powered by an ME device is at rest , t0, the Fluctuating Mass component is at its rest mass (FMCrm). at t1 the Fluctuating Mass component moved from FMCrm to FMCrm+dM. Then at t2 the Fluctuating Mass component moves from FMCrm+dM to FMCrm-dM. Now I have always assumed that dM is fixed in the device, mainly because if it wasn't Woodward would have been able to show a self-levitating demo. However, I recently realized that his theory doesn't forbid being able to dynamically change the magnitude of dM during operation of an ME device. The only open question is what is the theoretical upper and lower bound on the magnitude of dM. The ability to change the magnitude of dM during operation is important because if you cannot do that each stroke of the actuator pushing on the FMC when it is heavier and pulling on it when it is lighter should yield less and less unidirectional force over the acceleration period. This should be so because unless there is technology to enable this. The actuator doing the pushing and pulling can only do this with a fixed or maximum amount of force. So eventually the fluctuating Kinetic Energy in the FMC will be too much for the actuator to push against; since the FMC is being pulled in the direction of motion of the ship and pushed in the opposite direction of motion of the ship.
-
Has anyone considered CNC metal spinning?
That has been discussed before. My understanding with CNC metal spinning is that a die cast is used to form the metal onto. That is part of the reason I chose whole integers for the spherical radii of my endplates. 50cm and 25cm. I figure there are already die casts of spheres of those dimensions. I'm also looking into building or buying a spherometer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htBx5SRFeMI
-
It is my understanding that it is made to fluctuate in the following manner; when the ship powered by an ME device is at rest , t0, the Fluctuating Mass component is at its rest mass (FMCrm). at t1 the Fluctuating Mass component moved from FMCrm to FMCrm+dM. Then at t2 the Fluctuating Mass component moves from FMCrm+dM to FMCrm-dM.
If we consider the metronome (bad) analogue, it's the fluctuation process of the mass that results in the zero net thrust. From the layman's perspective (mine), the electrons moving out of the capacitor would seem to cause the forces to net to zero if we considered them little balls of mass, but, again, the analogy is poor at best, and likely just wrong.
Back to the peanut gallery for me.
-
Gilbertdrive writes;
But, as Shawyer calculates the imput power of the emdrive, he founds an enormous 6,04*10^20 Joules, he is happy and he considers that CoE is verified.
That is where the important point here. Shawyer admit that the Kinetic Energy in the Earth referential can not be superior to the energy spent by the ship. He just forgot to take into account his own theory in his thrust formula, and than, he made a mistake in calculating the imput power. (I calculated 6.311*10^13 Joules for 10 years of operation of the 200KwE generator, not taking into account the fact that the time goes more slowly for the ship.
No, I don't think he forgot anything. If he did then the reviewers did too which is unlikely. Shawyer's reduction in thrust as I understand it, is due to the cavity not supporting the acceleration, not actual speeds but regardless, his energy calculation for his probe allows continuous acceleration reduced by relativistic effects.
It is an authority argument. "If it is published, there is no big mistake"
At least, you should concede that the reviewer who accepted the Kinetic Energy to be calculated by 1/2*mv² for a speed of 0,67C made here a mistake, since the relativist formula was needed. The aim was to calculate a ratio that is around 0,31. so the relativist formula was making a real difference.
Also, the main point of my intervention was to show that in Shawyer theory paper, the thrust is supposed to decrease as acceleration from the time frame of the departure of the ship was increasing, so that CoE is verified. Are you convinced by the extracts that I have given, or do you think that, is this paper theory, the force is supposed to be constant ?
Here, the question is not what is true, it is what Shawyer is saying. Once we will agree on what Shawyer is saying in his theory paper, we can go to the other debate.
I agree he should have used relativistic kinetic energy if he applied relativistic effects to the cavity dynamics but then to be entirely consistent the integration over time would need to be done on both sides of the relation and things would get messy and mostly cancel out anyway. His probe is conceptual, not a precise mission plan so it doesn't matter much for this paper. I agree we are discussing what he is saying. In that vein, my thoughts follow.
In his earlier work, Shawyer showed how acceleration can collapse Q and thus force which the collapses acceleration. Looking at the papers you referenced, it's very clear that Shawyer was discussing energy conservation in relation to how the cavity can support a acceleration as the acceleration effects Q and not energy conservation as we have been debating with regards to fundamental considerations of classical mechanics that apply to all situations with a constant force. Not also that the velocity in figure 3.1 is the average velocity over the whole trip, not the instantaneous velocity.
In his later work Shawyer developed and discusses compensation techniques that allow the cavity to maintain a constant acceleration over the whole trip (or at least nearly so allowing a terminal velocity of 0.67c at the target star). It is in this context that he designed the parameters of his Interstellar Probe. I do not believe he forget anything as you suggested.
-
It is my understanding that it is made to fluctuate in the following manner; when the ship powered by an ME device is at rest , t0, the Fluctuating Mass component is at its rest mass (FMCrm). at t1 the Fluctuating Mass component moved from FMCrm to FMCrm+dM. Then at t2 the Fluctuating Mass component moves from FMCrm+dM to FMCrm-dM.
If we consider the metronome (bad) analogue, it's the fluctuation process of the mass that results in the zero net thrust. From the layman's perspective (mine), the electrons moving out of the capacitor would seem to cause the forces to net to zero if we considered them little balls of mass, but, again, the analogy is poor at best, and likely just wrong.
Back to the peanut gallery for me.
You are correct, simply fluctuating the mass doesn't yield a net force. Which is why another requirement for getting net force is that you manage to push on the FMC (Fluctuating Mass Component) while it is heavier and pull on the FMC when it is lighter. A much better analogy would be rowing a boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowing_(sport)#Anatomy_of_a_stroke); where the extraction phase is similar to pushing on the FMC while its mass is heavier and the retraction phase is similar to pulling on the FMC when it is lighter. It's the reason I used it to illustrate my understanding of what is going on here. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588451#msg1588451) If you want an accurate description of how you manage to push and pull on the FMC at the right time please see the papers linked to here (http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-update/).
-
1) The discussions about conservation of energy continue to take place without taking into account whether these are open systems. Any discussion about conservation of energy of an open system that does not take into account the external fields ,( for example one based on gravitation, like the Mach/Sciama/Woodward effect) is futile. Of course there will be an overunity problem if one does not take into account the external field (in the case of the Mach/Sciama effect: gravitation)! It would be like calculating conservation of energy for a gravity assist while ignoring the effect of gravity :).
Or like calculating conservation of energy for a solar sail while completely ignoring the solar pressure on it.
Or like calculating conservation of energy for a Laser propelled sail while completely ignoring the Laser (stationed on Earth or a supply vehicle) pressure on the sail.
Completely futile to discuss conservation of energy while ignoring the external field !
From elementary thermodynamics we know that conservation of energy applies to the whole closed system. One should not pick and choose a single component and discuss overunity while ignoring the interacting field effect on the other components.
(http://images.slideplayer.com/23/6816491/slides/slide_3.jpg)
2) If the material is piezoelectric and electrostrictive, all you need is to have a harmonic voltage excitation at a frequency omega (preferably the dominant natural frequency). The electrostriction is what automatically provides a 2*omega component. Few materials are piezoelectric, but all dielectrics are electrostrictive, so in general there is no need to separately excite at 2*omega a piezoelectric material. Due to damping (which is present in ALL materials) it is most effective to just excite at a single frequency and let electrostriction take care of the 2* omega term. Of course, the magnitude of the force depends on the electrostrictive and piezoelectric material constants for the material being tested.
3) Concerning whether or not there should be a terminal velocity.
Is there a terminal velocity for a gravity assist?
To have a terminal velocity you need to be moving in a fluid. Terminal velocity (as conventionally defined) is the highest velocity attainable by an object as it moves through a fluid. Terminal velocity occurs when the sum of the viscous drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the force of gravity acting on the object. When the forces are in balance then the total acceleration in steady state is zero, and hence one has a terminal velocity.
If you have a gravity assist maneuver around a gravitational body with no atmosphere (no fluid), there is no "terminal velocity" according to the usual definition of terminal velocity. There is a maximum velocity which is dictated by the equations of motion. If you are moving through a fluid, you have a terminal velocity, also dictated by the equations of motion, but now taking the fluid forces into account.
-
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket.
It's not about "nature conspiring to prevent this", it's about math... assuming that CoE holds. One has to take into account not just the kinetic energy of the rocket, but also the kinetic energy of the propellant (which decreases since it's being ejected in the opposite direction if you compare it to an earlier moment when it was moving together with the rocket). The rocket has to be constantly losing mass (i.e. propellant), and if you calculate the total energy over time, it all adds up and no "over-unity" occurs. The rocket does not know when to stop accelerating, it slows down naturally because it's losing mass/propellant. If there is no propellant and the rocket is not losing mass, "over-unity" is an obvious consequence, unless there is a way for it to "steal" energy from some unknown field.
I've shown you that my hypothetical rocket does run into over unity. You have to show me that it's impossible for any rocket to do that many burns without running out of mass.
-
In his earlier work, Shawyer showed how acceleration can collapse Q and thus force which the collapses acceleration. Looking at the papers you referenced, it's very clear that Shawyer was discussing energy conservation in relation to how the cavity can support a acceleration as the acceleration effects Q and not energy conservation as we have been debating with regards to fundamental considerations of classical mechanics that apply to all situations with a constant force. Not also that the velocity in figure 3.1 is the average velocity over the whole trip, not the instantaneous velocity.
In his later work Shawyer developed and discusses compensation techniques that allow the cavity to maintain a constant acceleration over the whole trip (or at least nearly so allowing a terminal velocity of 0.67c at the target star). It is in this context that he designed the parameters of his Interstellar Probe. I do not believe he forget anything as you suggested.
I disagree. It is clearly the same debate that we had. He clearly calculate the Kinetic Energy. It is not about the loss of resonnance due to the doppler, that is another problem.
If I was wrong, the 333mN/kg that are indicated by Shawyer and that I calculated exactly would be a pure coincidence (The loss of resonnance due to the doppler shift would exactly loss so that CoE is verified in my calculus.)
Do you assume this coïncidence ?
Anyway, I just looked with more attention the equations. Shawyer write on page 7 :
Pk=Mva
Where Pk is the output power transfered to the ship during Delta T, M the mass of the ship, V the average speed during the Delta T, and a the acceleration. Since the Delta T is short, the use of the average speed during this short period of time is OK.
I can divide each side of the equation by Mv, assuming that speed is not zero.
I get a=Pk/(Mv)
The acceleration during Delta T is equal to the energy provided to the ship during Delta T divided by the mass of the ship, and the speed of the ship.
That is exactly what I am saying since some time. The acceleration of the ship is inversely proportional to the speed of the ship.
The formula Pk=mVa is written directly by Shawyer. Since V is not zero, I can divide each part of the formula, and get my a=Pk/(Mv) Since Pk is constant, or at least limited to the whole electrical power of the ship, I can tell that for this Shawyer paper, the acceleration of the ship is inversely proportional to the speed of the ship.
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame.
It's not wrong to compare but to equate. Some are saying power expended x time in the ships frame must equal or exceed the total kinetic energy in the earth observer frame where the ship starts from rest. And if the velocity exceeds a critical number, the acceleration just falls off to conserve energy. I used to think that but now I don't. What magic mechanism alerts the ship that it's crossed that number wrt earth frame and decreases the acceleration?
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket. That's saying an EMDrive like device should never work at all. But if it works at all, there is no feasible mechanism I am aware of to decrease acceleration for a fixed force at a fixed power.
Consider that rocket doing the first burn seen from two frames, earth and another frame moving at 0.5c in the opposite direction. From earth, the first burn gives the ship a kinetic energy of 5E5J/kg. From the other frame the kinetic energy gain of the ship is huge from that burn 1.5E11J/kg. But counting the exhaust, it's the same energy released by the ship. There are frames where the energy balance is negative and energy burn is more than kinetic energy in that frame and there are frames where energy burn is less than the ships kinetic energy in that frame. All frames agree how much energy the ship burned as actual fuel. In all frames one can use the work energy theorem and get a prefect balance between force, distance and energy. According to some, the acceleration form the burns deceases to preserve CoE in some frames, but not others. This is chaos.
Can you tell who on this forum claimed that the acceleration from the burns was decreasing in some frames but no others ? I am afraid there were misunderstanding.
It's implicit by saying that the EmDrive/Mach thruster cannot work because constant force/acceleration is not practically possible and would become an over unity device (in my opinion).
-
...
It's not wrong to compare but to equate. Some are saying power expended x time in the ships frame must equal or exceed the total kinetic energy in the earth observer frame where the ship starts from rest. And if the velocity exceeds a critical number, the acceleration just falls off to conserve energy. I used to think that but now I don't. What magic mechanism alerts the ship that it's crossed that number wrt earth frame and decreases the acceleration?
...
The power expended x time in the ship frame is not really jumping frames, but I get why you think it is.
What we are calculating is how much energy is in the big battery attached to the drive in the initial rest frame before it starts accelerating. When the battery is drained in the final moving ship frame (assume to 0), the battery also will have 0 potential energy as determined in the initial rest frame. (At relativistic velocities, there are some caveats, since the field of a moving point charge is not uniform in all directions, but for the example Gilbertdrive was looking at this would be a factor of 3*, when the failure of CoE is a factor on the order of 10000000.)
The next question about the magic mechanism is one you would have to ask one of the people who support a theory like Shawyer's. Theories like the Mach effect, degradable QV, etc. provide effective propellant interactions, or preferred frames that allow CoE to be conserved. Not being able to explain how the theory matches with CoE is one of the many problems with Shawyer's theory.
*the relativistic effect on potential energy is non-trivial, energy stored in the fields, radiation reaction, etc. has to be considered, and the field dependence with angle relative to motion means that 2 equal charges a fixed distance apart could have different stored energy depending on their angle relative to the direction of motion, but length contraction probably cancels this. I may work out the details for myself if I have time, but at most it should just be a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2 / c^2).
If the ship is under constant acceleration, it's constantly jumping inertial frames. Any each moment it is in a 'instantaneous rest frame'.
-
It is an authority argument. "If it is published, there is no big mistake"
At least, you should concede that the reviewer who accepted the Kinetic Energy to be calculated by 1/2*mv² for a speed of 0,67C made here a mistake, since the relativist formula was needed. The aim was to calculate a ratio that is around 0,31. so the relativist formula was making a real difference.
Also, the main point of my intervention was to show that in Shawyer theory paper, the thrust is supposed to decrease as acceleration from the time frame of the departure of the ship was increasing, so that CoE is verified. Are you convinced by the extracts that I have given, or do you think that, is this paper theory, the force is supposed to be constant ?
Here, the question is not what is true, it is what Shawyer is saying. Once we will agree on what Shawyer is saying in his theory paper, we can go to the other debate.
I have no idea how Shawyer's 2015 Acta Astronautica paper has passed review.
(To read the formulas below you'll have invoke your built-in latex interpreter...)
The efficiency calculation (Eqs. 9-13) is completely pointless and the efficiency as defined in Eq. 13 is always 1. Basically (for the sake of simplicity in a non-relativistic case) Eq. (9) is the well known formula P=Tv, where P is power, T is thrust (force) and v is the spacecraft velocity (and we'll use a reference frame where the spacecraft starts at rest, so v(0)=0). Then energy used for accelerating the spacecraft by time t_a is E_in(t_a)=\int_0^t_a P(t) dt = \int_0^t_a T(t)v(t) dt. Inserting T=ma (m is spacecraft mass, a is its acceleration) we get E_in(t_a)=\int_0^t_a ma(t)v(t) dt = m\int_0^t_a d/dt[v(t)] v(t) dt = m/2 \int_0^t_a d/dt[v(t)^2] dt = (m/2)v(t_a)^2=E_k. Shawyer's Eq. 10 for E_in expresses this using the 'average' velocity, which he never seems to define. In case of time-varying thrust T in Eq. 10 should also be some sort of average, but in the paper it seems that T is assumed constant, which means that v_{av} = v(t_a)/2 (Shawyer uses V_T for v(t_a). You can check that in that case Eq. 13 yields 1 after you use v(t_a)=a t_a=T/m t_a and plug in the expression for thrust from Eq. 8 ).
So, shockingly, classical mechanics seems to be consistent: if an object is accelerated with a given power, at the end its kinetic energy is the same as energy used for accelerating the object. However, in Shawyer's theory 'mechanical power' P_{mech} comes from electrical (microwave) power P_0 through mystically energy multiplying resonating cavity, as shown in Eq. 8. To really calculate the efficiency one should use E_{in}=t_a P_0 (possibly with some correction for efficiency in converting to microwave power). With high enough Q, it's easy to get over-unity efficiency.
The reason Shawyer gets e_{to}=0.363 instead of 1 for his 'spaceplane' seems to be that numbers in Table 4 are not consistent. If you plug numbers in the Table to his formulas, acceleration becomes about 16.5 m s^-2 and the final velocity after 1300 seconds about 21.5 km/s. His 7.8 km/s apparently comes from the text, where he discusses the mission profile with acceleration 6 m s^-2; however, that acceleration is not consistent with the parameters in the table.
There's of course the caveat that I may have misunderstood Shawyer's paper completely. That is possible because the paper is very confusingly written and full of errors (typos in equations, undefined symbols etc.).
You're correct about classical mechanics if I understand your argument. You used the mechanical power which is force x velocity. Integrate that over time for constant acceleration and you get the kinetic energy. Shawyer does not confuse electrical and mechanical power. Shawyer says the constant force/acceleration is caused by the electrical power. That force times the velocity is the mechanical power he integrates over time. Some here are saying electrical power x time equally total kinetic energy.
-
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket.
In fact, there is no need to use directly the CoE principle. The newtonian mechanics complies with CoE. So we can solve this problem by using Newtonian mechanics, and the result will always respect CoE. The fact that it is not pratical to do the rocket is not a theoretical problem. Since newtonian mechanics are consistent with CoE, we can not even find a theoretical counter example.
So, I propose to analyse your example, and detail why it does not work.
First, it is true that the same burn will give the same acceleration relatively to different inertial reference frames if we are in Newtonian Mechanic (not relativist effect). But that needs of course to have ships of the same mass. So, it was right to use this principle same burn/same acceleration for 2 identical ships going at different speeds from earth, but you can not use it for comparing 2 successive burns of the same ship. The second burn give more acceleration that the first one, since the ship is lighter. At the same time, when the ship is lighter, for the same speed, it's Kinetic energy is lower.
First, if each burn realeased 5E7 J/kg, the total energy released would be 5E7*E4=5E11, not 5E10.
I perfectly understand your analysis, and your assertion. But you have taken impossible data. The impossible data is… the fact that 1% of the Energy was given to the ship, while 10 000 burns are possible.
If 10 000 burns are possible, each burn uses less than the mass of the ship divided by 10 000.
I shall suppose that the first burn has a perfect efficiency. It means that all the energy spent goes in motion, not in heat.
I shall suppose that the mass ejected during the burn is the mass of the ship divided by 10 000, forgive me, only 9 999 burns are possible, and I shall suppose that the mass of the empty ship itself is 1/10 000. after the first burn, assuming it is a instantaneous burn, like if the ship shot a bullet, the speed of the ejected mass will be of 999,9m/s and the speed of the ship will be 0,1m/s in the earth referential.
I call mb the mass ejected during a burn
It means that the Kinetic Energy of the ship will be Ks=½*mb*9999*(0,1)^2 when the Kinetic Energy of the expulsed mass will be Ke=½*mb*(999,9)^2
I calculate the ratio Ks/Ke=(9999*(0,1)^2)/(999,9)^2=0.00010001
It is around 10^-4
That means that only a little more than 0,01% of the spent energy goes to the Kinetic Energy of the ship. Most of the Energy goes to the expulsed mass.
That is why expulsing few mass at high speed is not energy efficient. That is why even a perfect ionic motors would not be great for pushing a car. That is also why the amelioration of ionic needs more and more energy. If we send the ions 10 times faster, we get 10 times more acceleration for the ship, but it needs 100 times more energy. So, the same acceleration needs 10 times more energy !
The lighter the ship is, the more efficient will be the burn. The 9999th burn will expell as much mass that the remaining mass on the ship, and the half of the Energy spend goes to the Kinetic Energy of the ship, but the ship is loosing at the same time half of it's mass, so it divided by 2 the Kinetic Energy of the ship.
At the end, the Ship will have a very few Kinetic Energy. Most of Kinetic Energy will belong to the expulsed propellant.
I can detail more, and make the calculus of how much Kinetic energy the ship has at the end, but for that, you need to detail your ship.
-mass of the ship
-mass ejected for each burn
I changed from 1000 to 10,000 and forgot to change that number. Sorry.
I knew there is not enough mass but the question is, is that nature's way of avoiding CoE issues as we are discussing or is that just because rockets are that way. If EmDrive works at any level, it should work at all levels.
-
In his earlier work, Shawyer showed how acceleration can collapse Q and thus force which the collapses acceleration. Looking at the papers you referenced, it's very clear that Shawyer was discussing energy conservation in relation to how the cavity can support a acceleration as the acceleration effects Q and not energy conservation as we have been debating with regards to fundamental considerations of classical mechanics that apply to all situations with a constant force. Not also that the velocity in figure 3.1 is the average velocity over the whole trip, not the instantaneous velocity.
In his later work Shawyer developed and discusses compensation techniques that allow the cavity to maintain a constant acceleration over the whole trip (or at least nearly so allowing a terminal velocity of 0.67c at the target star). It is in this context that he designed the parameters of his Interstellar Probe. I do not believe he forget anything as you suggested.
I disagree. It is clearly the same debate that we had. He clearly calculate the Kinetic Energy. It is not about the loss of resonnance due to the doppler, that is another problem.
If I was wrong, the 333mN/kg that are indicated by Shawyer and that I calculated exactly would be a pure coincidence (The loss of resonnance due to the doppler shift would exactly loss so that CoE is verified in my calculus.)
Do you assume this coïncidence ?
Anyway, I just looked with more attention the equations. Shawyer write on page 7 :
Pk=Mva
Where Pk is the output power transfered to the ship during Delta T, M the mass of the ship, V the average speed during the Delta T, and a the acceleration. Since the Delta T is short, the use of the average speed during this short period of time is OK.
I can divide each side of the equation by Mv, assuming that speed is not zero.
I get a=Pk/(Mv)
The acceleration during Delta T is equal to the energy provided to the ship during Delta T divided by the mass of the ship, and the speed of the ship.
That is exactly what I am saying since some time. The acceleration of the ship is inversely proportional to the speed of the ship.
The formula Pk=mVa is written directly by Shawyer. Since V is not zero, I can divide each part of the formula, and get my a=Pk/(Mv) Since Pk is constant, or at least limited to the whole electrical power of the ship, I can tell that for this Shawyer paper, the acceleration of the ship is inversely proportional to the speed of the ship.
With regards to the formula on page 8, the power is the mechanical power, not the electrical input and the formula is not an instantaneous dynamical equation. It concerns the entire trip. It assumes the acceleration was constant in the first place so it is not saying acceleration is inversely proportional to velocity at all.
Basically, he's deriving that the mechanical power is proportional to mass x acceleration x average velocity. This is always true for any system at constant acceleration. It's nothing new.
-
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
Integrating the theories is an intriguing possibility, and I would like to hear more about that. Is anyone discussing McCulloch's theories?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
By the way I see that Cramer is mentioned in this thread. Is he there?
New data in galaxies is confirming MiHsC theory of Dr. McCulloch. This seems a backup for using its modeling in increasing EmDrive size and exploring another resonant frequencies to scale up the thrust and facilitate the measuring.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com.es/2016/09/mihscqi-vs-new-mcgaugh-lelli-data.html
-
New data in galaxies is confirming MiHsC theory of Dr. McCulloch. This seems a backup for using its modeling in increasing EmDrive size and exploring another resonant frequencies to scale up the thrust and facilitate the measuring.
May the best theory win!
-
New data in galaxies is confirming MiHsC theory of Dr. McCulloch. This seems a backup for using its modeling in increasing EmDrive size and exploring another resonant frequencies to scale up the thrust and facilitate the measuring.
May the best theory win!
There may not be any such thing as a "best" theory to win. Rather, there maybe an overall unifying theory explaining all this. For example, before Witten (1995) unified string theory with M theory, it was thought that a large number of string theories were separate theories. Witten showed that they were all parts of the same theory.
Ditto for Schrodinger "wave mechanics" and Heissenberg "matrix mechanics" versions of Quantum Mechanics, initially posed as different theories, promptly shown to be the same thing.
Looking at aeronautical engineering: explaining what makes airplanes heavier than air fly, it was only later (after Prandtl) that the importance of vorticity and viscous fluid flow was understood to be the reason for it. And the reason why Lord Kelvin was wrong (thinking that heavier-than-air-flying was impossible: based on a perfect non-viscous flow model). (*)
This is usual in initial periods of uncertainty: only later are theories unified and better understood as a whole.
________________
(*) Present discussions of people pontificating that the EM Drive is impossible based on simplistic models of conservation of energy is amusing, as Lord Kelvin saying that heavier-than-air-flying was impossible: discussing conservation of energy for an open system that completely ignores the external field ! also making energy extrapolations while ignoring entropy !
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-heavier-than-air-flying-machines-are-impossible-lord-kelvin-100340.jpg)
-
http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/ (http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/)
-
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/25tce53.jpg)
Hope you don`t mind :)
-
By using the sand car example, did he mean that his MET rocket can fluctuate its mass, just like by releasing an astronaut, and then taking him back in again? This is beyond my pay grade too.
That is indeed the whole point of Mach Effect Thrusters, or METs. According to Woodward's transient mass equation:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
A mass fluctuation arises in an object when it absorbs energy (like a capacitor) as it undergoes proper acceleration.
I agree that a capacitor can increase its mass by absorbing energy, because this is predicted by Einstein's mass-energy equation. However, the energy the capacitor absorbed is taken from the battery or other sorts of energy sources. By losing that same amount energy, assuming 100% efficiency, the battery's mass decreases with the same amount. If the battery is on board of the same rocket, how can that help?
The mass fluctuation in a MET does NOT come from the mass of electrons flowing from the power supply in and out of the vibrating capacitors. The answer (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1292767#msg1292767) has been given right back to EmDrive Thread 1 (!):
Woodward's thruster is not a transducer. It's a transistor. It doesn't convert electrical into kinetic. It controls the flow of gravinertial flux--the stuff that through the universe's gravitational field, gives matter its mass--in and out of the thruster. Each Mach Effect cycle, the active mass in the thruster goes through a full 2w cycle, so the mass gets heavier, than lighter then heavier then lighter--4 discrete changes in each Mach Effect event. Gravinertial flux is flowing from the rest of the universe, into the active mass when it gets heavier, and back out when it gets lighter, and that flux is linked to the entire universe. So Mach Effect Thrusters are not transducers that covert energy, they're transistors, like on a sailboat. On a large racing yacht, if you were to look at the electrical energy driving the winches for the sails, and look at the kinetic energy of the boat through the water, you would appear to have a conservation violation, since the vast majority of the power into the system is in the wind, not the winch. Same with MET's. The real power is in the gravinertial flux--the universal wind created by and controlled by the MET. So you have to look at the entire system--the universe-- to do any meaningful conservation calculations with MET's.
It is the same kind of explanation than what Dr. Rodal is explaining here, yet this debate about Mach effect vs CoE continues based upon false premises.
-
...
a) Lost wax 3dprinting
As the name indicates, it involves a secondary process of metal melting and needs a metal foundry set up.
Such a casted piece would need additional machining to obtain a high reflective surface.
...
This has been discussed before. Copper has to be cast in a vacuum. Fine Silver (999) is relatively easy to cast but the walls would have to be quite thick. Otherwise there would be voids. Another problem with the lost wax process is it is not practical to cast a hollow container where the interior plaster mold is not supported at all. I think the most practical method of building a Copper or Fine Silver fustrum is to spin-form it on a lathe. Second to that would be to roll out a cone pattern and join the two sides with a riveted strip, using Copper rivets. That will ensure electrical continuity at the seam. The end caps can also be screwed together, using Copper screws. A while back someone was in touch with a Copper cookware manufacturer who could do this type of work. It requires specialized tools to get a finished article with smooth surfaces.
I think quite a few Babylonians and Egyptians would have been surprised to know that copper has to be cast in a vacuum!
-
Has anyone considered CNC metal spinning?
That has been discussed before. My understanding with CNC metal spinning is that a die cast is used to form the metal onto. That is part of the reason I chose whole integers for the spherical radii of my endplates. 50cm and 25cm. I figure there are already die casts of spheres of those dimensions. I'm also looking into building or buying a spherometer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htBx5SRFeMI
The vast majority of metal spinning die are wood. Only if many (1000's) duplicate articles are to be spun on the same die is it economical to make a metal die. The die is usually called a "plug" or "form". And the vast majority of metal spinning is not CNC, it is done on a lathe with a wooden dowel or metal rod, manually.
-
With regards to the formula on page 8, the power is the mechanical power, not the electrical input and the formula is not an instantaneous dynamical equation. It concerns the entire trip. It assumes the acceleration was constant in the first place so it is not saying acceleration is inversely proportional to velocity at all.
Basically, he's deriving that the mechanical power is proportional to mass x acceleration x average velocity. This is always true for any system at constant acceleration. It's nothing new.
Pk is the part of the electrical power that is not lost.
There is written P0=Pe+Pk where P0 is the imput power of the emdrive system, and Pe the losses, so Pk is realy the part of the electrical power that is converted into Kinetic energy. And by definition, Pk can not be superior to P0, since the losses can not be negative (the best possible case, there are zero losses) Is it Ok with that precise point ?
-
Consider a hypothetical rocket that can do 10000 burns at a delta v of 1000 m/s. Each burn requires a total energy of E, maybe only 1% goes to the ship. After the first burn, the kinetic energy of the ship wrt earth is 5E5/kg so assume the burn released 5E7 J/kg in its frame. What's the total energy released in the ships frame after 10000 burns? It should be 5E10J/kg. What's the kinetic energy wrt earth? It should be 5E13J/kg. No doubt some will claim nature conspires to prevent this by making the mass requirements great enough so it's never practical to make such a rocket.
It's not about "nature conspiring to prevent this", it's about math... assuming that CoE holds. One has to take into account not just the kinetic energy of the rocket, but also the kinetic energy of the propellant (which decreases since it's being ejected in the opposite direction if you compare it to an earlier moment when it was moving together with the rocket). The rocket has to be constantly losing mass (i.e. propellant), and if you calculate the total energy over time, it all adds up and no "over-unity" occurs. The rocket does not know when to stop accelerating, it slows down naturally because it's losing mass/propellant. If there is no propellant and the rocket is not losing mass, "over-unity" is an obvious consequence, unless there is a way for it to "steal" energy from some unknown field.
I've shown you that my hypothetical rocket does run into over unity. You have to show me that it's impossible for any rocket to do that many burns without running out of mass.
I have shown you your rocket is not at all over unity.
I knew there is not enough mass but the question is, is that nature's way of avoiding CoE issues as we are discussing or is that just because rockets are that way. If EmDrive works at any level, it should work at all levels.
It is like if you try to cut a cake in many pieces, than to re-assemble it and get a bigger cake. Can we tell that it is the nature way of avoiding CoE issues ? It is just that the standard physical laws satisfy CoE. As the division of the cake in several parts, and it's re-assembly will no create more mass, the separation in many burns and several stages will no create more Kinetic Energy :)
-
1) The discussions about conservation of energy continue to take place without taking into account whether these are open systems. Any discussion about conservation of energy of an open system that does not take into account the external fields ,( for example one based on gravitation, like the Mach/Sciama/Woodward effect) is futile. Of course there will be an overunity problem if one does not take into account the external field (in the case of the Mach/Sciama effect: gravitation)! It would be like calculating conservation of energy for a gravity assist while ignoring the effect of gravity :).
Or like calculating conservation of energy for a solar sail while completely ignoring the solar pressure on it.
Or like calculating conservation of energy for a Laser propelled sail while completely ignoring the Laser (stationed on Earth or a supply vehicle) pressure on the sail.
Completely futile to discuss conservation of energy while ignoring the external field !
You are right.
In fact, there are at this time two separates conversations about conservation of Energy. One about Mach effect and woodward papers, where I do not feel able to participate for now, another that I initiated about what Shawyer tells in this theory paper. It seems that I have a different understanding of what means this paper than some ;D Trying to solve this. When it is done I shall try to be more explicit about the context of Energy concern, with hypothesis indicated more clearly.
-
The CoE argument is best understood mathematically. Considering the kinetic energy, Ke, of a moving object:
Ke = (MV2)/2
If this is increasing due to a constant force then
V = at where a= acceleration and t = time
or V = (Ft)/M where F = the force and M = the mass
so the change or Δ kinetic energy equation can be written as:
ΔKe = (F2Δt)/(2M) where Δt is the time increment
This equation shows that the kinetic energy of a reactionless drive increases as the square of the force.
However we have been told many times that an EM-Drive produces a force that is proportional to the power input, or
F = WKc where W = the input energy in Watts and Kc = a constant
re-arranging this equation one gets the following:
W = F/Kc
The total power (Watt-Hours, etc) used over a time interval to operate the EM-Drive is:
P = WΔt = (FΔt)/Kc
Clearly the input power over time varies linearly with F, the force produced while the increase in kinetic energy varies by the square. So plot a parabola and a straight line. The parabola will start off below the straight line and will always, eventually cross the straight line.
For energy to be conserved P ≡ Ke at every instant of time. (ignoring losses and stored energy considerations) But a parabola's Y value is equal to a straight line's Y value at only 0, 1, or 2 points.
-
I notice that the whole debate about CoM/CoE starts with the assumption of a constant force.
But what if that is not the case?
Why is there that assumption when we do not even know what the "mechanism" behind the apparent forces is?
There are a lot of examples in science/engineering that bring up surprising results at first, but when fully understood, make perfect sense.
fe
For nearly 100 years of aerodynamics, we believed a perfectly smooth surface was by far the best performance solution, until a decade ago, engineering research showed that a "shark skin" had superior qualities.
It's only after understanding and developing/applying vortex hydrodynamics that it could be understood why it gave a better performance.
But nobody thought about applying this knowhow on the theoretical models that were developed prior to that discovery...
In a similar way, it might be jumping the gun, when you assess the Emdrive's CoM/CoE problem with what you currently know.
A theoretical model is only as good as the elements it took into account to mimic reality.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
-
1) The discussions about conservation of energy continue to take place without taking into account whether these are open systems. Any discussion about conservation of energy of an open system that does not take into account the external fields ,( for example one based on gravitation, like the Mach/Sciama/Woodward effect) is futile. Of course there will be an overunity problem if one does not take into account the external field (in the case of the Mach/Sciama effect: gravitation)! It would be like calculating conservation of energy for a gravity assist while ignoring the effect of gravity :).
...
Completely futile to discuss conservation of energy while ignoring the external field !
...
(http://images.slideplayer.com/4/1455454/slides/slide_12.jpg)
(http://images.slideplayer.com/23/6816491/slides/slide_3.jpg)
The above statement “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed ” is certainly false in our expanding space-time ruled by General relativity :
- Photons running in inter-galactic space have increasing wavelength and consequently smaller energy proportional to the inverse of the physical dimension of our universe.
- The total energy imposed by the cosmological constant increases with the third power of the physical dimension of our universe.
- Galaxies accelerate away from each other as the universe expands and consequently their relative cinetic energy increases.
The main point to understand is that in General relativity physical objects or fields do not propagate in a pre-existing translationally invariant spacetime. Consequently there is no energy conservation law applicable at whole space-time scale as the Noether's argument of translation invariance in time either fails, or becomes approximate, or becomes vacuous, or survives exclusively in spacetimes that preserve a special structure at infinity. At any rate, the status of energy conservation is not a reliable invariant on which we can base our analysis of a device which is thought to interact with the whole content of an universe which itself is not a closed system.
-
I notice that the whole debate about CoM/CoE starts with the assumption of a constant force.
But what if that is not the case?
Why is there that assumption when we do not even know what the "mechanism" behind the apparent forces is?
There are a lot of examples in science/engineering that bring up surprising results at first, but when fully understood, make perfect sense.
fe
For nearly 100 years of aerodynamics, we believed a perfectly smooth surface was by far the best performance solution, until a decade ago, engineering research showed that a "shark skin" had superior qualities.
It's only after understanding and developing/applying vortex hydrodynamics that it could be understood why it gave a better performance.
But nobody thought about applying this knowhow on the theoretical models that were developed prior to that discovery...
In a similar way, it might be jumping the gun, when you assess the Emdrive's CoM/CoE problem with what you currently know.
A theoretical model is only as good as the elements it took into account to mimic reality.
I think the debate now is about whether a constant force producing a constant acceleration is even possible in classical mechanics regardless of the EmDrive. Some are suggesting it's not possible, that nature won't allow it because it runs into 'overunity'. Some say a true constant force will produce a gradually reduced acceleration. I
find that position untenable.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I'm looking forward to reading about this. It sounds a lot like what I was thinking about the vacuum and possibly indicating some of the concepts Richard Feynman and Wheeler were suggesting.
The paper also mentions the Wheeler Feynman connection with signals propagating backwards in time and the negative energy fields. This reminded me of the thought that the vacuum may be made up of matter and anti-matter superimposed with time running backwards for anti-matter, and it also having anti-mass. With anti-mass running backwards in time, it seems like it would appear to have positive mass, which then allows us to push off it with normal momentum. If the anti-matter/mass/time overlaps with its mirror twin, then maybe it seems the anti-mass may lose its positive mass properties becoming negative mass and canceling the positive mass, cloaking into the vacuum.
...
if large enough electric fields were to cause polarization of the vacuum such that a current developed in the vacuum...
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I'm looking forward to reading about this. It sounds a lot like what I was thinking about the vacuum and possibly indicating some of the concepts Richard Feynman and Wheeler were suggesting.
I thought so too. If those virtual particles can become real particles then you can push on them in some way I would think. But even then, why no exhaust of these now real particles? Could they become real for only a brief moment and then become virtual again?
-
With regards to the formula on page 8, the power is the mechanical power, not the electrical input and the formula is not an instantaneous dynamical equation. It concerns the entire trip. It assumes the acceleration was constant in the first place so it is not saying acceleration is inversely proportional to velocity at all.
Basically, he's deriving that the mechanical power is proportional to mass x acceleration x average velocity. This is always true for any system at constant acceleration. It's nothing new.
Pk is the part of the electrical power that is not lost.
There is written P0=Pe+Pk where P0 is the imput power of the emdrive system, and Pe the losses, so Pk is realy the part of the electrical power that is converted into Kinetic energy. And by definition, Pk can not be superior to P0, since the losses can not be negative (the best possible case, there are zero losses) Is it Ok with that precise point ?
I see that but my suspicion is that like Woodward, he could pulse his ship is steps with this concept. By that I mean as Q goes down when v rises he has to re-guage the system by shutting it down and staring up the cavity fresh. Once it's off he should be able to start it from any frame. Max v is always measured with respect to the starting instantaneous rest frame. After each boost it doesn't matter what the instantaneous rest frame was at. So, the max v in this paper amounts to a delta v boost for each step. But he could do any number of steps one after another. If that is the case, there would ultimately still be the argument we were debating. All he's saying in this paper is that during each boost, energy is conserved. In later papers I think he assumes Q remains fixed so acceleration is always constant because he can compensate.
I think this is Shawyer's equivalent argument to Woodward's. I think this adds to my understanding of why this works. Thanks.
-
...
The above statement “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed ” is certainly false in our expanding space-time ruled by General relativity :
- Photons running in inter-galactic space have increasing wavelength and consequently smaller energy proportional to the inverse of the physical dimension of our universe.
- The total energy imposed by the cosmological constant increases with the third power of the physical dimension of our universe.
- Galaxies accelerate away from each other as the universe expands and consequently their relative cinetic energy increases.
The main point to understand is that in General relativity physical objects or fields do not propagate in a pre-existing translationally invariant spacetime. Consequently there is no energy conservation law applicable at whole space-time scale as the Noether's argument of translation invariance in time either fails, or becomes approximate, or becomes vacuous, or survives exclusively in spacetimes that preserve a special structure at infinity. At any rate, the status of energy conservation is not a reliable invariant on which we can base our analysis of a device which is thought to interact with the whole content of an universe which itself is not a closed system.
Yes, thank you, the statement you are objecting to was the first thing I grabbed from Google Images to drive home a visual aid of the difference between closed systems and open systems, and it deals with conservation of energy in Non-General-Relativistic terms.
The point I made <<The discussions about conservation of energy continue to take place without taking into account whether these are open systems. Any discussion about conservation of energy of an open system that does not take into account the external fields ,( for example one based on gravitation, like the Mach/Sciama/Woodward effect) is futile. Of course there will be an overunity problem if one does not take into account the external field>> remains valid in either case. Both for General Relativity and also within Special Relativity and classical mechanics. As there are other open systems that do not involve General Relativity.
The point you are making is true for General Relativity. However, even if a poster would not agree that General Relativity may be at play, there are other possible theories that may explain EM Drive acceleration as an open system. Hence posters continuing to pontificate that the EM drive violates conservation of energy based on simplistic arguments considering it as a closed system, who disregard external fields and also disregard entropy are proving nothing new. It is obvious that a closed electromagnetic cavity as a closed system that would self-accelerate would violate conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. At the very least they should qualify their statements by clearly stating that their analysis is only valid for a closed system, and that they are ignoring external fields.
It is interesting that people have continued to post about conservation of energy of the EM Drive without qualifying their statements that they are ignoring external fields and they are assuming a closed system. It would be helpful if they would clarify their point.
Thanks
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
In the following I don't consider the EmDrive breaking CoE, because I consider it as a relativistic open system.
It appears you're supposing that the EmDrive acts like any electromagnetic device. All electromagnetic devices can indeed be built either to generate mechanical energy (while electric energy is injected into the device) or conversely generate electric energy (while mechanical energy is applied to the device). Most common devices doing this are electric motors and electric generators (like dynamos and alternators). It is well known that electric vehicles now retrieve energy while braking for example.
However in your example in space there is no friction. When you switch off the thruster, your spaceship still moves at the same speed. It doesn't slow down.
The EmDrive may be a new kind of device converting electric energy into kinetic energy, not through Maxwell but through an inertial interaction with gravity (not necessarily the local gravitational field, see Mach effects).
So is there some similar mechanism that would slow down the EmDrive through some Machian momentum exchange with the universe mass, generating electric power? I don't have the answer.
Shawyer talks about a generator mode (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) when the EmDrive slows down:
With a negative acceleration, the overall Doppler shift will be positive. This will lead to an increase in stored energy, which is balanced by the loss of kinetic energy from the cavity. This is EmDrive in “generator” mode.
Reading between the lines it appears Shawyer says an EmDrive slowing down can indeed gain energy (the "stored" energy" in the cavity). But I don't know what to do with this claim since Shawyer's theory involves a closed system and obviously breaks CoE if the EmDrive has constant acceleration under constant power. How and why would Shawyer's EmDrive slow down anyway?
If this claim is true, like an E.V. braking on the road, it seems the increased stored energy in the cavity while slowing down could "preserve battery life" but that it could not act like a true power plant.
-
So is there some similar mechanism that would slow down the EmDrive through some Machian momentum exchange with the universe mass, generating electric power? I don't have the answer.
That was very helpful, and you pretty much nailed my thought process. The quote above is really what I was trying to say. I also hadn't heard the term "generator mode" used for this until now.
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
Not awkward at all. I thought rather insightful. A flywheel gains energy when spun by a motor and can deliver some of that energy when the motor is reconfigured.
Can an emdrive do this? If it is an open system as proclaimed by some there is reason to expect it to emit microwaves when it is pushed.
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
Not awkward at all. I thought rather insightful. A flywheel gains energy when spun by a motor and can deliver some of that energy when the motor is reconfigured.
Can an emdrive do this? If it is an open system as proclaimed by some there is reason to expect it to emit microwaves when it is pushed.
As a sealed microwave cavity, no, it cannot "emit microwaves" (act as a microwave source just because it is under acceleration). But, if the cavity is pushed (external energy applied), the EXISTING cavity microwaves (from an already applied microwave source) will undergo a doppler shift, leading to a Q mismatch, and increased reflection back to the microwave source (in most experimental cases, the magnetron).
Indeed, if you take your conjecture to the limit, the Emdrive would be an "over-unity" device.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
The article leads to this paper: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567 with a quote from it,
When the number of the electron-positron pairs becomes large, they produce more photons than the ones arrived from the electron layer. As a result, the self-sustained QED cascade characterized by exponential growth of the pair number in time can develop. It is demonstrated17 that the cascade growth rate is maximal in the magnetic nodes of the circularly polarized standing wave. However, it is discussed above that the pair positions are unstable in the magnetic nodes and is stable in the electric ones. The pair density profile is determined by the trade off between the pair production effect and the pair drift. Therefore, the density of the electron-positron plasma may peak at the electric and magnetic nodes as the pair production is the most efficient at the magnetic nodes, while the pairs after creation are attracted to the electric nodes.
Is it required for the E/M fields to be circularly polarized? Something to do with non-linear mechanics in the creation process? My thoughts on this were, what if we are creating position-electron pairs near the narrow end of the frustum where the magnetic field is large and then they are pushed toward the large electric field. This would give us our source of momentum possibly. It is interesting that if it is happening then gamma rays may be being generated in the process. If for some reason the pairs merge again but maintain their momentum I could imagine a Doppler shift but not sure how that factors in with the generated gamma rays. I would guess both could escape from the cavity.
Could this process be partly responsible for the laser measurements that detected time/space distortions in the pill shaped cavity? Also the creation of matter from the vacuum seems to me to almost suggest modifying the index of the vacuum at that point which could have an effect of modifying the mass of light.
-
snip...
The above statement “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed ” is certainly false in our expanding space-time ruled by General relativity :
- Photons running in inter-galactic space have increasing wavelength and consequently smaller energy proportional to the inverse of the physical dimension of our universe.
- The total energy imposed by the cosmological constant increases with the third power of the physical dimension of our universe.
- Galaxies accelerate away from each other as the universe expands and consequently their relative cinetic energy increases.
The main point to understand is that in General relativity physical objects or fields do not propagate in a pre-existing translationally invariant spacetime. Consequently there is no energy conservation law applicable at whole space-time scale as the Noether's argument of translation invariance in time either fails, or becomes approximate, or becomes vacuous, or survives exclusively in spacetimes that preserve a special structure at infinity. At any rate, the status of energy conservation is not a reliable invariant on which we can base our analysis of a device which is thought to interact with the whole content of an universe which itself is not a closed system.
All of these things can be explained by turning the Freidmann equation around, inverting the coordinate system so to speak. Consider the length scale "a", to be the scale of our ruler and not the scale of the universe. From this perspective. The universe could have a constant size, and constant energy and what we observe is perfectly natural in the case where our meter-stick is contracting at a rate of 6.9 nm/century as it loses energy, thereby showing us the Hubble constant. Photons do not need change energy, wavelengths appear to expand as our ruler contracts. The galaxies do not need to be accelerating away, the universe does not need to be expanding "except" when we assume our ruler is a fixed constant. It's all a setup, caused by our contracting meter-stick.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I'm looking forward to reading about this. It sounds a lot like what I was thinking about the vacuum and possibly indicating some of the concepts Richard Feynman and Wheeler were suggesting.
I thought so too. If those virtual particles can become real particles then you can push on them in some way I would think. But even then, why no exhaust of these now real particles? Could they become real for only a brief moment and then become virtual again?
The problem is, it takes an electric field of a billion-billion volts per meter to do it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit)
It only happens on the scale of electrons and charged sub-atomic particles.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I'm looking forward to reading about this. It sounds a lot like what I was thinking about the vacuum and possibly indicating some of the concepts Richard Feynman and Wheeler were suggesting.
I thought so too. If those virtual particles can become real particles then you can push on them in some way I would think. But even then, why no exhaust of these now real particles? Could they become real for only a brief moment and then become virtual again?
The problem is, it takes an electric field of a billion-billion volts per meter to do it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit)
It only happens on the scale of electrons and charged sub-atomic particles.
We need a bigger boat... err frustum. ::)
Shell
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
That is a very good way of looking at the problem. A few years ago I had the same idea with another device I was experimenting with. Any electromagnetic machine should operate as a generator or a motor. The other constraint I had to consider was the CoE conundrum. However this is easily seen in electromagnets: It is easy to move a strong magnet slowly across a thick Copper plate. When you attempt to move it quickly the resistance due to increased eddy currents makes it very hard. A lot of physical phenomena are reversible when the conditions are right. Most chemical equations are shown with the ⇔ operator. An electrodynamic tether is one example of propellantless propulsion that is reversible. When the induced current along the tether is used to charge batteries or just dissipated as heat the spacecraft drops to a lower orbit and has less kinetic energy. This has been proposed as a method for de-commisioning satellites. However before this "generator" mode of an EM-Drive is considered there are many prerequsites. No one to my knowledge has built an EM-Drive with a fustrum that was self-oscillating. By that I mean a cavity oscillator configuration. If you had a self-oscillating cavity would it generate RF energy if momentum was added to it? The doppler shift theory is not credible. If it were satellites would change their orbits whenever RF was transmitted to the ground,
No-one caught the error in my earlier post with the CoE equations. If you graphed ΔKe = (F2Δt)/(2M) and P = WΔt = (FΔt)/Kc they would both be straight lines; no parabola. However they do have different slopes. If the power applied to the EM-Drive was doubled, resulting in twice the force, the rate of change of its kinetic energy would increase by 4.
The only reason why this CoE conundrum exists is because it is claimed an EM-Drive produces a constant force for some constant input power. If this condition is relaxed and we say the force produced by any reactionless drive must decrease over time so as to satisfy CoE when a constant input power is applied it might be possible to make better theoretical progress.
-
So if I understand correctly, the EMdrive acts like a mach effect device, by concentrating energy in high amounts in a small area to produce artificial gravity control through the acquisition of artificial mass? Because of E=MC2 that means a given amount of energy concentrated in a small area should have some affect with gravitation or mass... right? Basically if you "charge" up an emdrive with energy you can create artificial mass with a lopsided center of gravity with specific geometric shape.
If this is what is going on, it would be easy to test the affect. Photons with lower energy will show a lower effect, and photons of the gamma ray spectrum would be the highest energy and would have the highest effect if you could get them to reflect inside the frustum....
-
I think the debate now is about whether a constant force producing a constant acceleration is even possible in classical mechanics regardless of the EmDrive. Some are suggesting it's not possible, that nature won't allow it because it runs into 'overunity'. Some say a true constant force will produce a gradually reduced acceleration. I find that position untenable.
emphasis mine.
No, no one has made that bolded statement (except maybe Shawyer), you keep turning what we are saying inside out and creating strawmen. (What has been said is that it takes increasing power to produce a constant force as the object accelerates, and no one has contested constant force = constant acceleration, because that is F = m*a)
A closed system that obeys the expression F = k * P (Force applied is directly proportional to Power applied, where k is a constant) is simply inconsistent with basic mechanics as it would break CoE, and the equation F*v = P, which comes from the basic definition of the terms. Therefore no such force can exist.** Rockets do not meet this description, but Shawyer's description of the emDrive does.
The Mach effect also does not meet this description (According to people who understand its principles better than me such as Rodal), but for some reason Woodward wrote a paper that makes it appear he doesn't understand the basic physics involved. Instead he could have just said "the Mach effect means the drive is not a closed system".
...With that said, I think any criticism of the third part of Woodward's Paper first has to explain why the Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation, as described by Woodward, either doesn't exist; or could not have the behavior described.
...
You are expecting criticism of the paper to answer things not said in the paper. The paper does not make the argument that F = k*P does not apply to the drive, and it does not describe any of the aspects of the Mach effect thruster that make it an open system, nor does it even mention transient mass fluctuations, let alone explain how those could resolve this issue as they are categorically different than normal expelling exhaust.
** Special relativity modifies this slightly, allowing the constant k to be up to 1/c due to 0 rest mass particles carrying momentum and energy.
-
I've always been ready to accept the the EMDrive breaks CoE if viewed as a closed system, but some parts of this discussion are most unintuitive.
Suppose we abandon any idea that the net force generated by the EMDrive is constant. Let's instead just assert that the change in kinetic energy is some fixed fraction of the electrical input power - the EMdrive is a device for turning electrical energy into kinetic energy. So
(dE/dt) = kP (equation 1)
Where E is the energy of the system, 0<k<1, and P is the input electrical power, and all items are measured in the rest frame of the device.
This seems profoundly unobjectionable: there is no free energy, in fact energy is always being dissipated in the rest frame of the device.
Where I get instantly stuck is as follows:
E = γmc² - the definition of relativistic energy
where 1/γ=√(1-v²/c²)
(dE/dt) = mc²dγ/dt = mc²(v/c²)γ³(dv/dt) = mvγ³(dv/dt) = 0 if v is 0
Now, this is purely related to the definition of gamma: and it requires (dE/dt) to be zero when v is zero, i.e. in the rest frame of the device. The equation is simpler without using special relativity, but the result is the same.
(dE/dt) = (d/dt) (½mv²) = mvdv/dt = 0 when v = 0
So despite appearing unobjectionable, the (Equation 1) can't happen!
If anyone can explain, or provide an analysis of the dynamics where equation 1 holds, or otherwise show me where I'm wrong, I would be very grateful.
-
I don't believe the EM drive is a closed system. In my mind it is something like a ring-laser-gyroscope in that aspect: A closed device that still "feels" the entire universe, otherwise it wouldn't work (someone else pointed this one out earlier and I agree, kind of a rewording of the bucket argument).
My opinion on the constant force equals constant acceleration: The ship gains mass as it accelerates so the same force applied will continuously create less acceleration. If the ship is going fast enough it will have the same mass as Jupiter at some point and an EM drive pushing on Jupiter won't do much. Maybe that is oversimplified, not sure.
One more thought:
If you take a video of a glass falling off a table and breaking and you watch it backwards it still obeys the laws of physics. You only know you are watching it backwards because of an instinct.
If you take a video of a glass of ice melting and watch it backwards you observe heat going from cold to hot. You know you are watching it backwards because it no longer makes sense.
Maybe it is too earlier for an answer but: If you take a video of an EM drive in action and you could somehow play it backwards, will it still make sense?
-
So if I understand correctly, the EMdrive acts like a mach effect device, by concentrating energy in high amounts in a small area to produce artificial gravity control through the acquisition of artificial mass? Because of E=MC2 that means a given amount of energy concentrated in a small area should have some affect with gravitation or mass... right? Basically if you "charge" up an emdrive with energy you can create artificial mass with a lopsided center of gravity with specific geometric shape.
If this is what is going on, it would be easy to test the affect. Photons with lower energy will show a lower effect, and photons of the gamma ray spectrum would be the highest energy and would have the highest effect if you could get them to reflect inside the frustum....
First, the EmDrive may or may not be governed by Mach Effects. The only reason it has come up in this thread is because at the SSI workshop it was offered as a possible explanation for the anomalous thrust that has been measured.
Now if it was proven or assumed that the EmDrive is governed by Mach Effects then it would mean that within the EmDrive the following is happening. Either one part of, or the entire internal cavity of the EmDrive is having its Mass fluctuate. This fluctuation only changes the mass of one part of or the entire internal cavity of the EmDrive. To get unidirectional force you would also need a force applied against the fluctuating mass when it is heavier and when it is lighter. In Woodward's MET devices this is triggered via the electrostrictive property of the stack his devices are built out of. I believe there was a recent discussion on this forum about how the same thing can happen within a copper frustum. In addition, I believe Paul March mentioned the same thing on this forum a while back (somewhere in the first couple of threads, IIRC).
This doesn't mean an EmDrive is governed by Mach Effects it just means it could be and if it was, you would expect to find something mimicking the process laid out above going on inside the Frustum.
-
Hey, does anyone know of a timeframe to look forward to seeing the proceedings from the SSI Workshop? Not asking for an exact date just would like a possible date range to pencil into my mental calendar.
-
Hey, does anyone know of a timeframe to look forward to seeing the proceedings from the SSI Workshop? Not asking for an exact date just would like a possible date range to pencil into my mental calendar.
Since all the work is being done by volunteers, and involves transcribing several different audio tracks, identifying questions and comments speakers by voice, cleaning up video problems (we lost our original videographer due to an injury two days before the event) and a lot of other boring work, I'm reluctant to give a schedule. (Also, just to manage expectations, the video is archival, not "TED" like quality.) Finally, the technical committee needs to get everyone's papers for the proceedings, and I believe they have given a deadline of early December for that submittal, prior to layout of the final proceedings hardcopy and PDFs.
-
Hey, does anyone know of a timeframe to look forward to seeing the proceedings from the SSI Workshop? Not asking for an exact date just would like a possible date range to pencil into my mental calendar.
Since all the work is being done by volunteers, and involves transcribing several different audio tracks, identifying questions and comments speakers by voice, cleaning up video problems (we lost our original videographer due to an injury two days before the event) and a lot of other boring work, I'm reluctant to give a schedule. (Also, just to manage expectations, the video is archival, not "TED" like quality.) Finally, the technical committee needs to get everyone's papers for the proceedings, and I believe they have given a deadline of early December for that submittal, prior to layout of the final proceedings hardcopy and PDFs.
Sounds like I should table any plans to do some light reading till next year. While keeping my ear to the ground for any changes. Thats fine. Just trying to set my own expectations.
-
I found this article interesting and possibly relevant to this discussion: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html
Note this statement: "A key concept behind the team's work is based on the quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction that "a strong electric field can, generally speaking, 'boil the vacuum,' which is full of 'virtual particles,' such as electron-positron pairs," explained Igor Kostyukov of IAP RAS. "The field can convert these types of particles from a virtual state, in which the particles aren't directly observable, to a real one."
Wow, thanks for sharing this. I'm looking forward to reading about this. It sounds a lot like what I was thinking about the vacuum and possibly indicating some of the concepts Richard Feynman and Wheeler were suggesting.
I thought so too. If those virtual particles can become real particles then you can push on them in some way I would think. But even then, why no exhaust of these now real particles? Could they become real for only a brief moment and then become virtual again?
The problem is, it takes an electric field of a billion-billion volts per meter to do it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit)
It only happens on the scale of electrons and charged sub-atomic particles.
I was speculating if light it self is a disturbance of the very fabric of our universe or these pairs. These pairs would appear to have zero rest mass, similar to light. If they become sufficiently separated (maybe a plank length) and they appear to gain mass as light appears to carry momentum by the energy it has. matter/anti-matter pairs might be the mechanism of how the mass of light could change. The disturbance of the anti-mater particle as light, if it is negative mass running in reverse time (resulting in positive mass till its time is canceled by the positive mass) could provide a mechanism for signals to go backwards in time as in the Feynman diagrams and the mach effect. Maybe it isn't necessary to separate them to the point we have full fledged electron-positron pairs. Maybe we could still keep it in the linear range, but just separate them enough to modify the mass of the light sufficiently such that a back reaction results on the pairs from the reflection of heavier light in the cavity on one side. After many reflections energy would effectively be transferred to the cavity from the many interactions of the light.
-
Recently, I was thinking about the nature of reciprocity in some cases of natural phenomenon, for example, Newtons Thrid Law of Motion, or, Faraday's law of induction.
Considering that spacetime distortion, due to a gravity field, leads to a change in the light path, or, a change in light velocity, when observed from a region with diferent spacetime metric.
Would a induced change in light velocity, induce a distorion in spacetime (to keep c constant at local reference), thus, generating gravity?
It's the opposite direction of:
Mass > Gravity > Spacetime distortion > Light distortion.
Where, a induced light distortion would create:
Light distortion > Spacetime distortion > Gravity
Note that the spacetime warp would happen because c must be constant.
I can explain it better later, but right now I dont have much time.
-
I think the debate now is about whether a constant force producing a constant acceleration is even possible in classical mechanics regardless of the EmDrive. Some are suggesting it's not possible, that nature won't allow it because it runs into 'overunity'. Some say a true constant force will produce a gradually reduced acceleration. I find that position untenable.
emphasis mine.
No, no one has made that bolded statement (except maybe Shawyer), you keep turning what we are saying inside out and creating strawmen. (What has been said is that it takes increasing power to produce a constant force as the object accelerates, and no one has contested constant force = constant acceleration, because that is F = m*a)
A closed system that obeys the expression F = k * P (Force applied is directly proportional to Power applied, where k is a constant) is simply inconsistent with basic mechanics as it would break CoE, and the equation F*v = P, which comes from the basic definition of the terms. Therefore no such force can exist.** Rockets do not meet this description, but Shawyer's description of the emDrive does.
The Mach effect also does not meet this description (According to people who understand its principles better than me such as Rodal), but for some reason Woodward wrote a paper that makes it appear he doesn't understand the basic physics involved. Instead he could have just said "the Mach effect means the drive is not a closed system".
...With that said, I think any criticism of the third part of Woodward's Paper first has to explain why the Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation, as described by Woodward, either doesn't exist; or could not have the behavior described.
...
You are expecting criticism of the paper to answer things not said in the paper. The paper does not make the argument that F = k*P does not apply to the drive, and it does not describe any of the aspects of the Mach effect thruster that make it an open system, nor does it even mention transient mass fluctuations, let alone explain how those could resolve this issue as they are categorically different than normal expelling exhaust.
** Special relativity modifies this slightly, allowing the constant k to be up to 1/c due to 0 rest mass particles carrying momentum and energy.
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
You also make a point about a 'closed' system. Shawyer claims the EmDrive is open, as does Woodward about his device.
Would you agree with this: If an EmDrive works at all, making a constant force in some frame, then it would keep accelerating as long as power were applied. Agree? If not you should at least admit an EmDrive up to k=2/c. But I've already shown photon recycling can break the 2/c limit. Thanks.
-
I started thinking about this topic the other way around and was wondering if there any comments. Suppose you locate a comet making it's way through the solar system at 100,000 MPH. Using convention rockets to match speeds we send up a very small EM device and attach it to the comet facing it's direction of travel and turn it on (battery powered for this thought experiment). Will it eventually scrub off speed from the comet while at the same time making copious amounts of electricity? Could the EM drive works "both ways"? It would seem to me that if the EM drives works it will scrub speed off the comet (simple retro-rocket), but what consequence for what is happening inside the EM device?
I doubt that. I think it would take power to slow something down just as it takes power to accelerate something.
Consider going to a distant planet to explore. You want to speed up then slow down and stop. Both take power.
The more I read that the more awkward it appears. What I was trying to say is:
The EM drive seems to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy without a reaction mass, but is their a configuration where it does the opposite? (I am not even sure what 'opposite' means in this context, but thought I would put it out there).
That is a very good way of looking at the problem. A few years ago I had the same idea with another device I was experimenting with. Any electromagnetic machine should operate as a generator or a motor. The other constraint I had to consider was the CoE conundrum. However this is easily seen in electromagnets: It is easy to move a strong magnet slowly across a thick Copper plate. When you attempt to move it quickly the resistance due to increased eddy currents makes it very hard. A lot of physical phenomena are reversible when the conditions are right. Most chemical equations are shown with the ⇔ operator. An electrodynamic tether is one example of propellantless propulsion that is reversible. When the induced current along the tether is used to charge batteries or just dissipated as heat the spacecraft drops to a lower orbit and has less kinetic energy. This has been proposed as a method for de-commisioning satellites. However before this "generator" mode of an EM-Drive is considered there are many prerequsites. No one to my knowledge has built an EM-Drive with a fustrum that was self-oscillating. By that I mean a cavity oscillator configuration. If you had a self-oscillating cavity would it generate RF energy if momentum was added to it? The doppler shift theory is not credible. If it were satellites would change their orbits whenever RF was transmitted to the ground,
No-one caught the error in my earlier post with the CoE equations. If you graphed ΔKe = (F2Δt)/(2M) and P = WΔt = (FΔt)/Kc they would both be straight lines; no parabola. However they do have different slopes. If the power applied to the EM-Drive was doubled, resulting in twice the force, the rate of change of its kinetic energy would increase by 4.
The only reason why this CoE conundrum exists is because it is claimed an EM-Drive produces a constant force for some constant input power. If this condition is relaxed and we say the force produced by any reactionless drive must decrease over time so as to satisfy CoE when a constant input power is applied it might be possible to make better theoretical progress.
The EmDrive is equivalent to a rocket operating in a regime where the thrust is constant and the chemical power is constant but instead of running out of mass quickly, it never does. If you relax the condition, you don't gain much because it would then take such immense energy storage to get to the nearest star for example, that even with nuclear, you'll never get reasonable accelerations.
-
Recently, I was thinking about the nature of reciprocity in some cases of natural phenomenon, for example, Newtons Thrid Law of Motion, or, Faraday's law of induction.
Considering that spacetime distortion, due to a gravity field, leads to a change in the light path, or, a change in light velocity, when observed from a region with diferent spacetime metric.
Would a induced change in light velocity, induce a distorion in spacetime (to keep c constant at local reference), thus, generating gravity?
It's the opposite direction of:
Mass > Gravity > Spacetime distortion > Light distortion.
Where, a induced light distortion would create:
Light distortion > Spacetime distortion > Gravity
Note that the spacetime warp would happen because c must be constant.
I can explain it better later, but right now I dont have much time.
Paraphrasing a rather drunk Cmdr. Deanna Troi: "Time? This is no time to talk about time. We don't have the time!... What was I saying?" ;D
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
...SNIPPED
This understanding is not correct, "rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame". Actually rocket applies it's thrust in an inertial reference frame. In the "constantly accelerating reference frame" (I assume you are talking about the rocket itself as a frame) there is no thrust, because there is no acceleration. In an inertial reference frame, the rocket equation can be derived as
F(external force)=Ma+(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))dM/dt. This equation is good for any inertial reference frame. For rocket that does not experience external force (air drag, gravity, etc), the equation becomes Ma=(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))(-dM/dt). This right side is just the thrust, and it is with any inertial reference frame, and not with the constantly accelerating reference frame. For details you can see my discussion in the pdf file ( Woodward_updated.pdf , in section III) downloadable in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
-
Recently, I was thinking about the nature of reciprocity in some cases of natural phenomenon, for example, Newtons Thrid Law of Motion, or, Faraday's law of induction.
Considering that spacetime distortion, due to a gravity field, leads to a change in the light path, or, a change in light velocity, when observed from a region with diferent spacetime metric.
Would a induced change in light velocity, induce a distorion in spacetime (to keep c constant at local reference), thus, generating gravity?
It's the opposite direction of:
Mass > Gravity > Spacetime distortion > Light distortion.
Where, a induced light distortion would create:
Light distortion > Spacetime distortion > Gravity
Note that the spacetime warp would happen because c must be constant.
I can explain it better later, but right now I dont have much time.
Paraphrasing a rather drunk Cmdr. Deanna Troi: "Time? This is no time to talk about time. We don't have the time!... What was I saying?" ;D
Hahahaha, oh man, this reminds me of a physics professor back in my college days.
But hey, we know (do we?) that there are wavelength variations inside a frustrum cavity, and some months ago, the White–Juday warp-field interferometer gave positive results (positive and repeatable?) for the warp effect inside of the EmDrive... Just saying...
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
...SNIPPED
This understanding is not correct, "rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame". Actually rocket applies it's thrust in an inertial reference frame. In the "constantly accelerating reference frame" (I assume you are talking about the rocket itself as a frame) there is no thrust, because there is no acceleration. In an inertial reference frame, the rocket equation can be derived as
F(external force)=Ma+(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))dM/dt. This equation is good for any inertial reference frame. For rocket that does not experience external force (air drag, gravity, etc), the equation becomes Ma=(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))(-dM/dt). This right side is just the thrust, and it is with any inertial reference frame, and not with the constantly accelerating reference frame. For details you can see my discussion in the pdf file ( Woodward_updated.pdf , in section III) downloadable in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
Professor Woodward derived the rocket equation from F=dp/dt=d(Mv)=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt, where he implicitly talked about the v in Mdv/dt as relative to an inertial frame but the v in vdM/dt as relative to the rocket. This kind of derivation is incorrect. What dp/dt=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt means physically needs careful analysis. We can not mindlessly apply chain rule of derivative to dp/dt without knowing what it really means. They way I used in my pdf file causes no confusion.
-
Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things.
Another limiting factor for a photon rocket is the final mass. A photon rocket converts mass into the energy of photons. Sooner or later it will run out of "fuel" mass, likely well before relativistic effects come into play. The formula can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
-
....
My opinion on the constant force equals constant acceleration: The ship gains mass as it accelerates so the same force applied will continuously create less acceleration. If the ship is going fast enough it will have the same mass as Jupiter at some point and an EM drive pushing on Jupiter won't do much. Maybe that is oversimplified, not sure.
....
The mass of an object is always defined in its own frame of reference. A rock does not gain mass when it is thrown.
The confusion most often begins with the term "relativistic mass" which is misleading unless you pay attention to the relativistic qualifier, which restricts it to some preferred frame of reference, usually an inertial frame associate with the lab or say the earth itself. The term encompasses an object's rest mass and its kinetic energy/momentum. The kinetic energy/momentum is dependent on the frame of reference it is being compared to..., usually whatever it is going to collide with.
When discussing the EmDrive, a satellite or spaceship, once it has reached an escape velocity or greater, and is outside the atmosphere of a planet, the planet and its gravity well are no longer significant issues, relative to continued acceleration.
Once you set aside gravity and for simplicity sake, things like how frame dragging, in the larger contexts of the solar system and even galaxy, what may be important are things like the composition of the quantum vacuum and how it might interact with massive objects.
I for one believe that if EM waves inside a can can make it move, then the EM waves outside the can that it moves relative to, have to be considered as producing at least a potential resistance to that motion... And that resistance should scale relativistically. If so even if you get a constant thrust for a constant expenditure of energy, the acceleration would not be constant/uniform. At classical velocities it may appear so, but ultimately the discussion assumes relativistic velocities.
-
...
...With that said, I think any criticism of the third part of Woodward's Paper first has to explain why the Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation, as described by Woodward, either doesn't exist; or could not have the behavior described.
...
You are expecting criticism of the paper to answer things not said in the paper. The paper does not make the argument that F = k*P does not apply to the drive, and it does not describe any of the aspects of the Mach effect thruster that make it an open system, nor does it even mention transient mass fluctuations, let alone explain how those could resolve this issue as they are categorically different than normal expelling exhaust.
** Special relativity modifies this slightly, allowing the constant k to be up to 1/c due to 0 rest mass particles carrying momentum and energy.
I agree that none of those things are mentioned. However, it is the lack of mentioning those things that I believe has lead to a lot of the criticisms of that said paper. Context is very important. I have had this discussion about Woodward's refutation of over unity paper at least three times now. And every time I am left with the impression that either the critique didn't completely read the paper or their interpretation is completely different from mine. Each time it ends up being the interpretation and once you prod you realize is that there is a mismatch in expectations. Given the title, I think critiques expected a straightforward well laid out argument for why devices governed by ME are open systems and how momentum transfer occurs so as not to violate CoM/CoE. Instead what that paper does from the outset, is state that devices governed by ME ARE SIMPLE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. For a critic that isn't convinced of this statement, there are no references to previous papers included at the end to help them come to terms with that statement. After that statement is made, Woodward proceeds to explain why OverUnity in Simple Mechanical systems cannot occur. Then launches in on why he supposes his critiques make the mistake he says is not possible. Then finishes up with a description of how one should do the calculation for a device governed by ME. If I hadn't invested enough time to read most of the papers they have put out and engaged in discussions with other followers of ME about how it works. I have zero doubt I would take the same position as many critics of the paper have made. When there are a bunch of papers he has published that do a good job going into the description of how his MET's work.
However, once you understand the idea Woodward is proposing with Mach Effect Theory. Then I would strongly argue that the first 3/4 of the paper makes sense. the last 1/4 is still a little problematic for me personally but that's because I don't know if the description he provides at the end is enabled by the mass fluctuations taking place in the MET. I suspect that is the case; since the kinetic energy of the internals of the MET device would be very different from the rest of the ship it is propelling.
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
...SNIPPED
This understanding is not correct, "rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame". Actually rocket applies it's thrust in an inertial reference frame. In the "constantly accelerating reference frame" (I assume you are talking about the rocket itself as a frame) there is no thrust, because there is no acceleration. In an inertial reference frame, the rocket equation can be derived as
F(external force)=Ma+(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))dM/dt. This equation is good for any inertial reference frame. For rocket that does not experience external force (air drag, gravity, etc), the equation becomes Ma=(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))(-dM/dt). This right side is just the thrust, and it is with any inertial reference frame, and not with the constantly accelerating reference frame. For details you can see my discussion in the pdf file ( Woodward_updated.pdf , in section III) downloadable in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
Professor Woodward derived the rocket equation from F=dp/dt=d(Mv)=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt, where he implicitly talked about the v in Mdv/dt as relative to an inertial frame but the v in vdM/dt as relative to the rocket. This kind of derivation is incorrect. What dp/dt=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt means physically needs careful analysis. We can not mindlessly apply chain rule of derivative to dp/dt without knowing what it really means. They way I used in my pdf file causes no confusion.
I didn't ask this in my previous comment on your report. But can you point out where Woodward actually does a derivation of the Rocket Equation, because in the paper all he does is state the Rocket Equation as you have done. Then talk about the differences between the force represented by the Ma term which you have rewritten as Mdv/dt and the vdM/dt term. This is specifically done to call out the situation where if the mass change of a vehicle is perpendicular to the motion of that vehicle does it affect the velocity of that vehicle. I don't see any derivation being done here more an interpretation of what the terms in the equations mean physically. with the question about the effect of motion on the vehicle being left to the reader to answer. Which I said seems to have been done because in a MET there is a component whose mass is actively being changed, as the Mach Effect Transient mass fluctuation is triggered. Since this is explained as an interaction with the rest of the mass of the far universe, via a gravitational version of absorber theory. I do not think it a stretch that he also believes the mass change in a MET also occurs perpendicular to the motion of the vehicle a MET is propelling.
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
...SNIPPED
This understanding is not correct, "rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame". Actually rocket applies it's thrust in an inertial reference frame. In the "constantly accelerating reference frame" (I assume you are talking about the rocket itself as a frame) there is no thrust, because there is no acceleration. In an inertial reference frame, the rocket equation can be derived as
F(external force)=Ma+(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))dM/dt. This equation is good for any inertial reference frame. For rocket that does not experience external force (air drag, gravity, etc), the equation becomes Ma=(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))(-dM/dt). This right side is just the thrust, and it is with any inertial reference frame, and not with the constantly accelerating reference frame. For details you can see my discussion in the pdf file ( Woodward_updated.pdf , in section III) downloadable in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
Professor Woodward derived the rocket equation from F=dp/dt=d(Mv)=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt, where he implicitly talked about the v in Mdv/dt as relative to an inertial frame but the v in vdM/dt as relative to the rocket. This kind of derivation is incorrect. What dp/dt=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt means physically needs careful analysis. We can not mindlessly apply chain rule of derivative to dp/dt without knowing what it really means. They way I used in my pdf file causes no confusion.
I didn't ask this in my previous comment on your report. But can you point out where Woodward actually does a derivation of the Rocket Equation, because in the paper all he does is state the Rocket Equation as you have done. Then talk about the differences between the force represented by the Ma term which you have rewritten as Mdv/dt and the vdM/dt term. This is specifically done to call out the situation where if the mass change of a vehicle is perpendicular to the motion of that vehicle does it affect the velocity of that vehicle. I don't see any derivation being done here more an interpretation of what the terms in the equations mean physically. with the question about the effect of motion on the vehicle being left to the reader to answer. Which I said seems to have been done because in a MET there is a component whose mass is actively being changed, as the Mach Effect Transient mass fluctuation is triggered. Since this is explained as an interaction with the rest of the mass of the far universe, via a gravitational version of absorber theory. I do not think it a stretch that he also believes the mass change in a MET also occurs perpendicular to the motion of the vehicle a MET is propelling.
The derivation is this part: dp/dt=Mdv/dt+vdM/dt (the first part of his equation (16)). He explicitly stated that this was due to Newton's second law (which is F=dp/dt). How he reached from Newton's second law to the rocket equation is called a derivation. I did not rewritte Ma as Mdv/dt+vdM/dt but he did. See his equation 16). You have not define what is a "mass change of a vehicle is perpendicular to the motion of that vehicle".
-
Wondering now, if it is worth saying this again...
The proportional relationship between energy of motion and the square of its velocity is a relative one. It cannot be otherwise or it would impede our freedom of movement. When an emdrive is tested in space that relationship will have no relevance beyond getting folk over the hump of credulity which it invokes. :P
-
E = γmc² - the definition of relativistic energy
Not sure where you found that equation, but the definition of relativistic energy is E2 = (m*c2)2 + (p*c)2, where p = γ*m0*v
In the limit v << c for special relativity you get classical mechanics, so your result won't change in that respect, but the derivative will be more annoying.
...
...With that said, I think any criticism of the third part of Woodward's Paper first has to explain why the Mach Effect transient mass fluctuation, as described by Woodward, either doesn't exist; or could not have the behavior described.
...
You are expecting criticism of the paper to answer things not said in the paper. The paper does not make the argument that F = k*P does not apply to the drive, and it does not describe any of the aspects of the Mach effect thruster that make it an open system, nor does it even mention transient mass fluctuations, let alone explain how those could resolve this issue as they are categorically different than normal expelling exhaust.
** Special relativity modifies this slightly, allowing the constant k to be up to 1/c due to 0 rest mass particles carrying momentum and energy.
I agree that none of those things are mentioned. However, it is the lack of mentioning those things that I believe has lead to a lot of the criticisms of that said paper. Context is very important.
...
Some things can't be saved by any amount of context. It doesn't matter that there are correct ways to get to the conclusion, the statements in the paper are completely wrong, even if the conclusion is right.
However, once you understand the idea Woodward is proposing with Mach Effect Theory. Then I would strongly argue that the first 3/4 of the paper makes sense. the last 1/4 is still a little problematic for me personally but that's because I don't know if the description he provides at the end is enabled by the mass fluctuations taking place in the MET. I suspect that is the case; since the kinetic energy of the internals of the MET device would be very different from the rest of the ship it is propelling.
The last 1/4 is the worst, but that is a close call. Earlier, he goes through all of the correct steps to do a proof by contradiction that if a closed system obeys the figure of merit equation, then CoE is broken. While he is ambiguous about what went wrong, he is clear that he thinks that because you arrived at a contradiction you can't learn anything from that line of logic, and the logic must be broken. As I said, this is a proof by contradiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). His statements demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic logic.
The remaining section about rockets and cars with sand falling out of them is simply irrelevant. The mass leaving the system of those examples is completely different than the Mach effect where it is a mass fluctuation that only produces a propulsive effect due to theories that are not discussed in the paper at all.
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
You also make a point about a 'closed' system. Shawyer claims the EmDrive is open, as does Woodward about his device.
Would you agree with this: If an EmDrive works at all, making a constant force in some frame, then it would keep accelerating as long as power were applied. Agree? If not you should at least admit an EmDrive up to k=2/c. But I've already shown photon recycling can break the 2/c limit. Thanks.
First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
-
As this is an important clarification by them I have posted it in both relevant threads.
CUBESAT MISSION CLARIFICATION
There has been a lot of erroneous information in media articles regarding Cannae’s upcoming launch of a cubesat mission into LEO. To clarify our previous post and press release: Cannae is not using an EmDrive thruster in our upcoming launch. Cannae is using it’s own proprietary thruster technology which requires no on-board propellant to generate thrust. In addition, this project is being done as a private venture. Cannae is only working with our private commercial partners on the upcoming mission.
http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/
-
E = γmc² - the definition of relativistic energy
Not sure where you found that equation, but the definition of relativistic energy is E2 = (m*c2)2 + (p*c)2, where p = γ*m0*v
At least some questions I can answer. J.G.Taylor, 'Special Relativity', Clarendon Press, 1975, equation 5.19.
E as defined is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, with the momentum you mention as the space component. As a component of a 4-vector, it is not a Lorentz invariant.
In his equation 5.20, he notes the algebraic identity
(E²/c²)-p²=m²c² where m is the rest mass, manifestly a Lorentz invariant
If you plug in E = γmc² and p=γmv, you will find that this is always true because of the definition of γ.
The other way round, if you plug in your own definition of p and the regular definition of γ, you will find this equation reduces to my definition of E.
If you work through E = γmc² for small velocities, you will find that to first order in (v²/c²), E = mc²+½mv², ie. rest energy plus kinetic energy.
Bottom line is that I'm pretty sure I'm right on this narrow point.
I'm still scratching my head as to why dE/dt always has to be zero in the rest frame.
-
As this is an important clarification by them I have posted it in both relevant threads.
CUBESAT MISSION CLARIFICATION
(snip)
I read this as saying 'We are not testing Shawyer's stuff, we are testing our own version of a resonant cavity thruster'. Do you suspect something else?
(modify to remove typo)
-
As this is an important clarification by them I have posted it in both relevant threads.
CUBESAT MISSION CLARIFICATION
(snip)
I read this as saying 'We are not testing Shawyer's stuff, we are testing our own version of a resonant cavity thruster'. Do you suspect something else?
(modify to remove typo)
It's probably a propriety thing that have to be clear on this.
-
FYI:
https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16616/nsf16616.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
-
Simple comment here.
Whether you consider V < C or V<<C or V <<<< C does not matter. Relativity still holds. There is no set point where relativity does not hold or stops!
The engineering way is to round off the numbers... But you can't round off/away the principle. Whatever effects you expect from relativity still happens at V <<<<<<< C It is just smaller, not gone.
Remember this when trying to figure out how the universe works; does it work according to principles or does it work as we like to round it off?
Marcel,
-
E = γmc² - the definition of relativistic energy
Not sure where you found that equation, but the definition of relativistic energy is E2 = (m*c2)2 + (p*c)2, where p = γ*m0*v
At least some questions I can answer. J.G.Taylor, 'Special Relativity', Clarendon Press, 1975, equation 5.19.
E as defined is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, with the momentum you mention as the space component. As a component of a 4-vector, it is not a Lorentz invariant.
In his equation 5.20, he notes the algebraic identity
(E²/c²)-p²=m²c² where m is the rest mass, manifestly a Lorentz invariant
If you plug in E = γmc² and p=γmv, you will find that this is always true because of the definition of γ.
The other way round, if you plug in your own definition of p and the regular definition of γ, you will find this equation reduces to my definition of E.
If you work through E = γmc² for small velocities, you will find that to first order in (v²/c²), E = mc²+½mv², ie. rest energy plus kinetic energy.
Bottom line is that I'm pretty sure I'm right on this narrow point.
I'm still scratching my head as to why dE/dt always has to be zero in the rest frame.
You are right, I made a stupid mistake when I went through the algebra to check that equation.
The dE/dt is only instantaneously 0. If you allow any finite time to pass, it is non-zero. One way to think about it is you are taking an infinitesimal increase in velocity dv, so you are still in effectively the rest frame. The kinetic energy in the rest frame is always 0 by definition. Also, when considering infinitesimals, the momentum is m*dv, but the energy is 0.5*m*dv^2, and squared infinitesimals are infinitely smaller than infinitely small, so they are 0 as long as there are any first order infinitesimals around.*
* mathematicians would not like my phrasing here, but I am trying to explain this conceptually, so I am skipping the rigor.
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
...SNIPPED
This understanding is not correct, "rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame". Actually rocket applies it's thrust in an inertial reference frame. In the "constantly accelerating reference frame" (I assume you are talking about the rocket itself as a frame) there is no thrust, because there is no acceleration. In an inertial reference frame, the rocket equation can be derived as
F(external force)=Ma+(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))dM/dt. This equation is good for any inertial reference frame. For rocket that does not experience external force (air drag, gravity, etc), the equation becomes Ma=(v(of rocket)-v(of exhaust))(-dM/dt). This right side is just the thrust, and it is with any inertial reference frame, and not with the constantly accelerating reference frame. For details you can see my discussion in the pdf file ( Woodward_updated.pdf , in section III) downloadable in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
Ok, but you're just nitpicking. The rocket frame always has a co-moving instantaneous rest frame.
-
Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things.
Another limiting factor for a photon rocket is the final mass. A photon rocket converts mass into the energy of photons. Sooner or later it will run out of "fuel" mass, likely well before relativistic effects come into play. The formula can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
A photon rocket is anything that releases EM radiation as a means of propulsion. It could be a laser shooting out the back of a rocket. In that case it would provide the same thrust (laser power/c) as long as electrical power were provided. Perhaps you are thinking of an antimatter-matter rocket which is a special case.
-
A photon rocket is anything that releases EM radiation as a means of propulsion. It could be a laser shooting out the back of a rocket. In that case it would provide the same thrust (laser power/c) as long as electrical power were provided. Perhaps you are thinking of an antimatter-matter rocket which is a special case.
If I understand it correctly, ANY photon rocket has to lose mass since otherwise it would violate CoE. Essentially, with every photon emitted, the system loses a bit of mass (corresponding to the energy of the photon emitted). The exact mechanism is irrelevant. In other words, an autonomously-powered laser also loses mass as it emits photons.
-
Ok, I understand the difference. You're saying it takes an increasing power (electric) to maintain a constant force. If I'm accelerating an object with a rail gun that would seem to be the case but I'm providing a force in a fixed frame. But there are ways of applying a fixed force at a fixed power in an accelerating frame. Photon beam propulsion does provide a fixed force at a fixed power up to relativistic speeds or at least relativistic effects limit things. And rockets certainly do provide a constant thrust for a constant power, for a limited time. So that disproves your asserting that such a constant force at constant power is outside the bounds of classical mechanics. The confusion is because the rocket applies it's thrust in a constantly accelerating reference frame and normal simpler mechanical systems apply a force from a fixed reference frame. That makes all the difference.
You also make a point about a 'closed' system. Shawyer claims the EmDrive is open, as does Woodward about his device.
Would you agree with this: If an EmDrive works at all, making a constant force in some frame, then it would keep accelerating as long as power were applied. Agree? If not you should at least admit an EmDrive up to k=2/c. But I've already shown photon recycling can break the 2/c limit. Thanks.
First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
Sorry but a rocket absolutely can provide a constant thrust for constant power, they do it all the time. I thought it was plainly obvious that I am referring to a flight regime where the mass change is trivial compared to the overall mass. Then it can be at or near a constant for a while. I really am not debating about the rocket equation over the whole trip. The main point is to compare it to the EmDrive which purports to have a constant thrust at a constant power. I'm not saying it must or it's always exactly thus but that it is possible. So, for my purposes, yes, the rocket has a constant thrust for a given power over some regime of flight.
Yes, you can do twice as well with an external beam as propulsion than if you have the beam emitting from the rocket because you have twice the momentum change. No, the Doppler shift does happen but it's effect is very small until very high speeds are reached and that is not the main point we are debating. That's a second order issue.
Photon recycling does involve another body but not another energy source. So you can do better than 2/c over the whole trip. If fact if you recycle at an effective momentum of 4 * power/c you run into 'over unity' past c/2.
-
A photon rocket is anything that releases EM radiation as a means of propulsion. It could be a laser shooting out the back of a rocket. In that case it would provide the same thrust (laser power/c) as long as electrical power were provided. Perhaps you are thinking of an antimatter-matter rocket which is a special case.
If I understand it correctly, ANY photon rocket has to lose mass since otherwise it would violate CoE. Essentially, with every photon emitted, the system loses a bit of mass (corresponding to the energy of the photon emitted). The exact mechanism is irrelevant. In other words, an autonomously-powered laser also loses mass as it emits photons.
Yes but it's very small, total energy/c^2 which would be something like a kg over a trip to the nearest star.
-
The dE/dt is only instantaneously 0. If you allow any finite time to pass, it is non-zero. One way to think about it is you are taking an infinitesimal increase in velocity dv, so you are still in effectively the rest frame. The kinetic energy in the rest frame is always 0 by definition. Also, when considering infinitesimals, the momentum is m*dv, but the energy is 0.5*m*dv^2, and squared infinitesimals are infinitely smaller than infinitely small, so they are 0 as long as there are any first order infinitesimals around.*
* mathematicians would not like my phrasing here, but I am trying to explain this conceptually, so I am skipping the rigor.
My calc and de teacher (he was completely amazing (and ridiculously difficult), so I took him for 3 semesters) just rolled over in his grave, or he would, if he were dead.
-
Grave rolling aside, if the energy I generate by accelerating to 50m/s on my motorcycle is relative to the centre of our galaxy then I would need a megawatt power station to drive it.
Conservation of energy is broken, of course it is. Conservation of momentum is absolute and should remain valid for continuous accelerations in free space, but energy remains relative. JMN..
-
Grave rolling aside, if the energy I generate by accelerating to 50m/s on my motorcycle is relative to the centre of our galaxy then I would need a megawatt power station to drive it.
Conservation of energy is broken, of course it is. Conservation of momentum is absolute and should remain valid for continuous accelerations in free space, but energy remains relative. JMN..
It's not though - you always get the same increase/decrease in the energy of a system, regardless of the ref frame (must be inertial though). When you accelerate on a motorcycle, you push the earth backwards a little bit. The total energy of the system (motorcycle + earth) increases by exactly the same amount in any inertial ref frame, even one moving at hundreds km/sec relative to us. This amount corresponds to the power you "spent" while accelerating.
-
Grave rolling aside, if the energy I generate by accelerating to 50m/s on my motorcycle is relative to the centre of our galaxy then I would need a megawatt power station to drive it.
Conservation of energy is broken, of course it is. Conservation of momentum is absolute and should remain valid for continuous accelerations in free space, but energy remains relative. JMN..
It's not though - you always get the same increase/decrease in the energy of a system, regardless of the ref frame (must be inertial though). When you accelerate on a motorcycle, you push the earth backwards a little bit. The total energy of the system (motorcycle + earth) increases by exactly the same amount in any inertial ref frame, even one moving at hundreds km/sec relative to us. This amount corresponds to the power you "spent" while accelerating.
Yes, and for the emdrive the system for which the energy is total, must include the rest of the universe. The connection between the craft and the universe may be difficult to visualise but it gets a lot easier if you appreciate it as the mechanism of inertia itself.
Mach inspired Einstein, maybe Einstein could have learnt even more from him if there were an emdrive to consider at that time :)
-
Off topic, but I thought I'd post a link to the project of the young scientist that just won the Google Science competition. Very impressive. As are all the finalists.
http://bit.ly/29S1Uvo (http://bit.ly/29S1Uvo)
-
Magnetron Thermal Runaway and Vortex Shedding: In a last ditch effort to get good data from a standard microwave magnetron and prevent thermal runaway heating, I have developed a Phase Change Collar. The collar consists of three ice gel packs attached to aluminum U channel. Aluminum foil was tightly packed around the magnetron core heatsink to improve coupling with the phase change collar. The collar also allows me to seal the heatsink core to prevent vortex shedding turbulence - which obscures the last half of my data.
The collar is kept in the freezer until needed for testing, when it is slipped over the magnetron as shown. It is refrozen between tests.
-
First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
Sorry but a rocket absolutely can provide a constant thrust for constant power, they do it all the time. I thought it was plainly obvious that I am referring to a flight regime where the mass change is trivial compared to the overall mass. Then it can be at or near a constant for a while. I really am not debating about the rocket equation over the whole trip. The main point is to compare it to the EmDrive which purports to have a constant thrust at a constant power. I'm not saying it must or it's always exactly thus but that it is possible. So, for my purposes, yes, the rocket has a constant thrust for a given power over some regime of flight.
...
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
Yes, you can do twice as well with an external beam as propulsion than if you have the beam emitting from the rocket because you have twice the momentum change. No, the Doppler shift does happen but it's effect is very small until very high speeds are reached and that is not the main point we are debating. That's a second order issue.
Photon recycling does involve another body but not another energy source. So you can do better than 2/c over the whole trip. If fact if you recycle at an effective momentum of 4 * power/c you run into 'over unity' past c/2.
You don't get to pick and choose what laws you pay attention to, either include the Doppler shift and see that it is not constant force/power ratio, or get the wrong answer. And this is the point we are debating, because you keep trying to find constant force/power ratio systems with a value greater than 1/c, and I am showing you that none of the ones you are coming up with are.
For photon recycling, you have to account for Doppler shifts at both ends, and the acceleration of the reflector on the other end. As the spacecraft and reflector accelerate away from each other, force/power ratio decreases. Not constant force/power, so it does not break CoE.
-
....
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
....
meberbs, shouldn't that be acceleration rather than thrust?
I know this might be being picky about wording. Forgive me if I missed something in the earlier discussion and misunderstand your intent. For the better part of this year I have been unable to do much more than scan or skim posts.
As long as a rocket is either on or off, rather than being throttled, the thrust (force) should be constant, while as you mention the "changing mass".., and even location in the earth's gravity well, would result in a constantly changing rate of acceleration, the thrust or force produced by the rocket should be constant. Until the fuel is expended.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
-
EmDrive is not "something good".
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Achieving dramatic improvements in space propulsion would be "something good." (I hope everyone here agrees on that). EmDrive is one of many proposal on the table. I don't know which one (if any) will be ultimately successful, but I most certainly hope at least one will be.
Political factors: I would reverse your analogy and compare (most of) the skeptics to those who believe moon landing is a fake. Regardless of whether moon landing is or isn't a fake, or whether the EmDrive works or not, I am interested in why one would want to believe such things.
-
....
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
....
meberbs, shouldn't that be acceleration rather than thrust?
I know this might be being picky about wording. Forgive me if I missed something in the earlier discussion and misunderstand your intent. For the better part of this year I have been unable to do much more than scan or skim posts.
As long as a rocket is either on or off, rather than being throttled, the thrust (force) should be constant, while as you mention the "changing mass".., and even location in the earth's gravity well, would result in a constantly changing rate of acceleration, the thrust or force produced by the rocket should be constant. Until the fuel is expended.
In this case, I was analyzing just the force on the ship and payload (which have constant mass) while excluding the remaining fuel in the tanks, so neither force nor power was constant. If I included the remaining fuel, the force would have been constant, but it would have been trickier to define the power, since the system of interest would no longer have constant mass. The point was just demonstrating that rockets don't have the constant force/power issue that breaks CoE for propellantless thrusters.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Similar for me.
The biggest issue is that things like the emDrive get surrounded by people with nonsense theories that are simply inconsistent or wrong. My recent discussions here trying to explain CoE are a good example.
The experiments are fine, although I think there can be a tendency for confirmation bias, because of various factors.
Scientists are out there looking for anomalous results all the time, but when they find a big one, instead of saying "I've found propellantless propulsion" they say "I got some weird results, can someone help me figure out why?" When neutrinos were detected moving faster than light, despite the media reports, their actual message to other scientists was "what did we do wrong?" Other scientists helped them figure it out, because they clearly understood that this was more likely a flawed experiment than FTL neutrinos. They still were hoping that it would pan out, but understood the low odds. https://xkcd.com/955/
Most experts hear about something like the EmDrive, take one glance at the mangled theory in Shawyer's papers, and the conclusion jumping of experimenters straight to the least likely outcome of radically new physics, and have no desire to look into it further. In part, that is because the amount of incompetent analysis and conclusion jumping makes it all the more likely the effect is just an overlooked experimental error, or obscure effect of known physics that the people doing the research don't understand well enough to recognize that it is not useful.
What I would like to know is what makes some people who don't understand basic physics concepts think they somehow know better than all of the professional physicists. And why they are so stubborn when flaws in their theories are pointed out. (Besides occasional ones in this thread promoting completely wrong theories, there are even worse ones attracted by the emDrive who periodically post in this section, usually to have their threads deleted within a couple days.) From my perspective those are the people who do the most harm, by ensuring most physicists will not take the emDrive seriously by association.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Similar for me.
The biggest issue is that things like the emDrive get surrounded by people with nonsense theories that are simply inconsistent or wrong. My recent discussions here trying to explain CoE are a good example.
The experiments are fine, although I think there can be a tendency for confirmation bias, because of various factors.
Scientists are out there looking for anomalous results all the time, but when they find a big one, instead of saying "I've found propellantless propulsion" they say "I got some weird results, can someone help me figure out why?" When neutrinos were detected moving faster than light, despite the media reports, their actual message to other scientists was "what did we do wrong?" Other scientists helped them figure it out, because they clearly understood that this was more likely a flawed experiment than FTL neutrinos. They still were hoping that it would pan out, but understood the low odds. https://xkcd.com/955/
Most experts hear about something like the EmDrive, take one glance at the mangled theory in Shawyer's papers, and the conclusion jumping of experimenters straight to the least likely outcome of radically new physics, and have no desire to look into it further. In part, that is because the amount of incompetent analysis and conclusion jumping makes it all the more likely the effect is just an overlooked experimental error, or obscure effect of known physics that the people doing the research don't understand well enough to recognize that it is not useful.
What I would like to know is what makes some people who don't understand basic physics concepts think they somehow know better than all of the professional physicists. And why they are so stubborn when flaws in their theories are pointed out. (Besides occasional ones in this thread promoting completely wrong theories, there are even worse ones attracted by the emDrive who periodically post in this section, usually to have their threads deleted within a couple days.) From my perspective those are the people who do the most harm, by ensuring most physicists will not take the emDrive seriously by association.
I am slightly baffled by your post as you're talking as if there aren't some extremely sober theorists looking into this, some post about it in this topic. Also there are experimenters who are looking into this matter in a level headed way. I think you do both a disservice with this post of yours.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
Shouldn't people welcome new knowledge and possibilities rather than fear them as that seems illogical?
-
Shouldn't people welcome new knowledge and possibilities rather than fear them as that seems illogical?
One the things from the original Star Trek that has withstood the test of time, history, and philosophy: humans are not logical.
-
I am slightly baffled by your post as you're talking as if there aren't some extremely sober theorists looking into this, some post about it in this topic. Also there are experimenters who are looking into this matter in a level headed way. I think you do both a disservice with this post of yours.
I probably should have been a bit more clear, I was talking generally from the perspective of a scientist who has not been following this closely. If the emDrive wasn't being discussed on this specific site, there is no chance I would have stuck around long enough to find that there are some people doing good experiments and are open to analysis of their design, but who still have anomalous results.
I of course recognize their are some good theorists looking into this, who have gotten past the nonsense to find their is some good work done, and obviously the other way around that there are people doing good experiments. I am sorry if my post implied otherwise.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
I don't think fear has any real part of it, at least the way you described. As I was describing most scientists would not believe there is a any chance that the emDrive works, so why would they be afraid of it? Even if it works I don't see it as something that would divert research funds as much as open up new funding sources.
If there is any money concern it is more that they are annoyed that people are wasting their time and money on something that "obviously" (from their perspective) doesn't work.
Maybe some of them are afraid of this being a sign of an epidemic of idiocy (remember to them this is just yet another perpetual motion machine). Since the emDrive also made some mainstream press, they also might be afraid of it tainting the public's perception of science. (I didn't see anything that hinted at good science in most of the mainstream press, which is bad at reporting science stuff to begin with.)
-
I don't post much here and on other forums not at all. Most of you know me and the work I have done over the last year on this "anomaly in a can". Some people have seen what they think as a thrust, some have had null results, some are still digging into it.
For 50 years I have built things that work, lol, why build something that doesn't work? It's a huge waste of time. From mainframe computers, to EPA gas analysis equipment, to building sonic equipment to find subs, to 4 Editor's Choice Awards in PC Mag, To imaging systems for particle colliders, digital video ad insertion equipment (when there wasn't any) to my own company building and designing equipment that make semiconductors. I never built things that didn't work, (well maybe they didn't work the first get go) lol. You know, it's easy to build something that doesn't work, a piece of cake. What's hard, is to build something that works. In the competitive world it better work and work better than anything else or you know what happens then.
The EDrive is very tough to build to work and easy to build to not work. My first one didn't work, my design had too many holes. (inside joke for those who have been following me this last year) The next 2 did, I got something, something strange. Do you understand what the DTYIers and Universities that are building are trying to do? We're building something that shouldn't work, to work (thrust), to prove why it does work. And why it does work could throw physics a curve ball, or not. The jury is still out.
You see it's important to build this drive to consistently work and to provide thrust, not to get people upset in stepping all over cherished known physics, but to understand why it does what it does, to find the answers.
Looking back this last year we all have made major strides to the conundrum of this drive and maybe soon will have some solid data. There is no bad data, just good science.
My Best,
Shell
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
It has been explained why the presentations from SSI have not been put up yet. It's because volunteers are doing all the editing etc of the videos in their own time and again as has been explained in this thread the deadline for submitting papers presented at the conference for later publishing is December. Also the AIAA paper is not due to be published until December. So don't make the assumption that just because something isn't instantly available that it equals a negative.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
It has been explained why the presentations from SSI have not been put up yet. It's because volunteers are doing all the editing etc of the videos in their own time and again as has been explained in this thread the deadline for submitting papers presented at the conference for later publishing is December. Also the AIAA paper is not due to be published until December. So don't make the assumption that just because something isn't instantly available that it equals a negative.
Since a number of folks from this group were there, can someone at least say if anything earth shattering as far as evidence was presented? Thanks.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
I'm working on a response to your analysis of Woodward's paper but need a little more time. I think I see some logical flaws in your arguments. :)
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
-
First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
Sorry but a rocket absolutely can provide a constant thrust for constant power, they do it all the time. I thought it was plainly obvious that I am referring to a flight regime where the mass change is trivial compared to the overall mass. Then it can be at or near a constant for a while. I really am not debating about the rocket equation over the whole trip. The main point is to compare it to the EmDrive which purports to have a constant thrust at a constant power. I'm not saying it must or it's always exactly thus but that it is possible. So, for my purposes, yes, the rocket has a constant thrust for a given power over some regime of flight.
...
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
Yes, you can do twice as well with an external beam as propulsion than if you have the beam emitting from the rocket because you have twice the momentum change. No, the Doppler shift does happen but it's effect is very small until very high speeds are reached and that is not the main point we are debating. That's a second order issue.
Photon recycling does involve another body but not another energy source. So you can do better than 2/c over the whole trip. If fact if you recycle at an effective momentum of 4 * power/c you run into 'over unity' past c/2.
You don't get to pick and choose what laws you pay attention to, either include the Doppler shift and see that it is not constant force/power ratio, or get the wrong answer. And this is the point we are debating, because you keep trying to find constant force/power ratio systems with a value greater than 1/c, and I am showing you that none of the ones you are coming up with are.
For photon recycling, you have to account for Doppler shifts at both ends, and the acceleration of the reflector on the other end. As the spacecraft and reflector accelerate away from each other, force/power ratio decreases. Not constant force/power, so it does not break CoE.
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever. :-\
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
-
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
-
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks.
-
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks.
Just to clear up the air by anyone from EagleWorks or NASA. Nothing was presented on the paper being released. Dr. White wasn't there and Paul March was very mum on any of the current testing or theories or anything on the new paper. I was really hoping for more, but sadly it didn't happen. grrrr
Best,
Shell
-
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks.
Just to clear up the air by anyone from EagleWorks or NASA. Nothing was presented on the paper being released. Dr. White wasn't there and Paul March was very mum on any of the current testing or theories or anything on the new paper. I was really hoping for more, but sadly it didn't happen. grrrr
Best,
Shell
Thank you for the clarification. Surprised then the talk was embargoed then.
-
...
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
I did look at rfmwguy's videos and excel files when they were posted. My recollection was they showed a strong thermal signature (second order response), just like EW's vacuum tests. I have done my own research and I helped with research projects when I was at university so know there is no substitute for well archived, traceble raw data and a write-up that describes the experiment protocol. EW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out. In any investigation all data should have equal weight. It doesn't matter if you are trying to invent new science or are just trying to improve a product. When people have been working for years and have only a few results to show one has to conclude the majority of their experiments were inconclusive. This is the pattern I have seen with EM-Drive experiments. If the EW people, in their upcoming paper, recognize the difference between a first order response and a second order response and can show valid thrust results I will be really surprised.
-
...
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
I did look at rfmwguy's videos and excel files when they were posted. My recollection was they showed a strong thermal signature (second order response), just like EW's vacuum tests. I have done my own research and I helped with research projects when I was at university so know there is no substitute for well archived, traceble raw data and a write-up that describes the experiment protocol. EW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out. In any investigation all data should have equal weight. It doesn't matter if you are trying to invent new science or are just trying to improve a product. When people have been working for years and have only a few results to show one has to conclude the majority of their experiments were inconclusive. This is the pattern I have seen with EM-Drive experiments. If the EW people, in their upcoming paper, recognize the difference between a first order response and a second order response and can show valid thrust results I will be really surprised.
EW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out.
This is where you and I disagree, that's making assumptions about data presented by NASA. If anything it would be in their interest to present data that either refutes or denies, not to cherry pick data to make someone look good. That is counter to what NASA has stood for for years.
A researcher should be willing to look at the data objectively and when I say there is no bad data, I mean just that. If this evolves to something that gets us to the stars, then great, if this evolves to something that will not, then great. All that means is the next step from here will be different.
Shell
PS: Didn't you see monomorphic's data?
-
....
Shell
...
....
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
the authors find a giant electrostrictive effect in the particular kind of thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer they tested., The polyurethane used was produced by Deerfield Urethane, Inc. using a Dow polyurethane (Dow
2103-80AE).
It is important to use exactly the same type of polyurethane elastomer (as polyurethanes can be thermoset or thermoplastic, and they have a wide variety of hardness depending on the formulation (**)).
Lubrizol acquired the Pellethane product line from Dow in 2009, but this thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer is still marketed by Lubrizol:
https://lubrizol.com/Engineered-Polymers/Estane/2103-80AE.pdf
There is still a Deerfield Urethanes in Massachusetts that may be able to provide this: http://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/0953577D:US-deerfield-urethane-inc
NOTE: the tan delta of this material may be a problem, if too large, it will lower the Q and result in significant heat generation. The softening point of this material is low, at 185 deg F=85 degC. The Tg is below room temperature, at -40 deg C (it is an elastomer at room temperature). I rapidly looked for the dielectric tan delta but could not readily find a value in the Internet.
______________________
(*) Q11= 450 m^4/C^2 for this TPU, compared with inorganic ceramic PZT which has Q11=0.1 m^4/C^2
(**) Here are more technical details of the TPU formulation they used:
The soft segment was poly(tetramethylene glycol) (PTMEG) with a molecular weight of about 1000. The hard segment is comprised of a di-isocyanate and a diol chain extender. The diisocyanate is methylenedi-p-phenyl di-isocyanate (MDI) and the dial chain extender is 1,4-butanediol (BD). The mole ratio of the components is about 1.8 mol MDI/0.8 mol BD/1.0 mol PTMEG. Hence, the hard segment (MDI+BD) is approximately 34% by weight in the sample.
-
....
Shell
...
....
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
...
See this more recent article (2012)
Electroactive Thermoplastic Dielectric Elastomers as a New Generation Polymer Actuators
Chong Min Koo
Table 3, page 410, showing a number of polymers with even higher values of electrostriction Q(m^/C^2)
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34076.pdf
SEBS poly (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene) triblock copolymer and MA (maleic anhydride) thermoplastic dielectric elastomers have even more gigantic electrostrictive constants
-
....
Shell
...
....
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
...
See this more recent article (2012)
Electroactive Thermoplastic Dielectric Elastomers as a New Generation Polymer Actuators
Chong Min Koo
Table 3, page 410, showing a number of polymers with even higher values of electrostriction Q(m^/C^2)
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34076.pdf
SEBS (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene) and MA (maleic anhydride) thermoplastic dielectric elastomers have even more gigantic electrostrictive constants
Very nice, morning reading!
Thanks Dr. Rodal!
Shell
-
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever. :-\
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect.
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
-
Phase change collar worked very well. The magnetron remained cool, and since the heatsink is now sealed, I was able to eliminate the vortex shedding problem. Hot vortices would rise and flow around one side of the torsional pendulum arm, causing the test article to move "forward." You can see a comparison from the 9-1 test below.
It looks like what I am seeing now is displacement caused by current heating the leads - since displacement begins on power on, and before any RF is present.
-
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever. :-\
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect.
Thanks, but just to clarify, when you say it won't break CoE, do you specifically mean it won't keep accelerating past a certain velocity wrt the starting frame of reference. If my view it does yet nothing ever can break any true law of physics but may bend our current understanding of them.
-
Phase change collar worked very well. The magnetron remained cool, and since the heatsink is now sealed, I was able to eliminate the vortex shedding problem. Hot vortices would rise and flow around one side of the torsional pendulum arm, causing the test article to move "forward." You can see a comparison from the 9-1 test below.
It looks like what I am seeing now is displacement caused by current heating the leads - since displacement begins on power on, and before any RF is present.
Wires in each circuit should be twisted tightly in pairs. If you can use shielded cables for the ground, it will prevent spurious fields from interacting. I see your ground wire in the photo. This should be twisted with the other wires and terminated much closer to the point of power input, or eliminated in favor of a shielded cable. Minimize inductance of every circuit by twisting them tight. Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum.
-
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever. :-\
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect.
Thanks, but just to clarify, when you say it won't break CoE, do you specifically mean it won't keep accelerating past a certain velocity wrt the starting frame of reference. If my view it does yet nothing ever can break any true law of physics but may bend our current understanding of them.
It depends on how it works, if it works by pushing on something new, like dark matter, degradable QV, etc, then the performance of the drive would be affected by the magnitude and direction of the local flow of what it is pushing against. If it is pushing on the entire rest of the matter in the universe, which is how I understand the Mach effect, then the effect of velocity/direction on its performance would be negligible. Although if you did the math for a hypothetical universe with only the drive and one other small object, I would expect some relative velocity terms to appear.
The details of the theory would be needed to conclude anything, but most valid theories should show increasing power required to accelerate against the local flow of what it is pushing against.
-
Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum.
The three leads are braided together. Here is a better image. I will probably redo the leads, move them around, try different windings. I am using the highly flexible silicone wire.
-
Monomorphic,
The wire braids may contribute to thrust.
Will the leads be secured to avoid thrust contributions or do they need to be floating for some reason,
Will the leads be shielded?
(edited for clarity)
-
Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum.
The three leads are braided together. Here is a better image. I will probably redo the leads, move them around, try different windings. I am using the highly flexible silicone wire.
The electrostatic and magnetic forces between the conductors will affect the stiffness of the cable when power is applied. I think it will want to straighten out. Whatever net force caused by that and/or thermal expansion of the wires, MAY be reduced by routing the cable as closely as possible to the axis of rotation of your test rig. That might reduce the leverage that the cable has on the frustum. Also, if there is any way to attach the ground wire directly to the magnetron, that might help too.
Peanut gallery out.
-
OK, the peanut gallery has one more. This might be over the top, but when considering forces in the micro-newton range, maybe not.
Consider making cables with two wires per polarity in a diamond configuration (thinking of the cross section). Then, at any point in time, two conductors will be attracting each other, and two will be repelling each other, by equal amounts.
The same strategy could be used to minimize the effect of thermal expansion by pairing wires that have a positive coefficient of expansion with wires that have a negative coefficient (if such beasties exist!).
Peanut gallery out. Again.
-
Will the leads be secured to avoid thrust contributions or do they need to be floating for some reason,
Will the leads be shielded?
Right now I simply have the leads hanging from the torsional pendulum support beam in a drop loop. I don't have any plans to shield the wires, though it is not out of the question. It is obvious from the data that I will need to spend some time working on the leads. That or go with a solid state amp and batteries.
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Good thoughts Todd, I finally remembered what kept me from becoming interested in the mach-effect device a couple of years ago; it is basically like an ultrasonic transducer, subject to vibrations like a Piezo-electric buzzer.
However, I never researched it thoroughly and cannot make that statement with any author, it was just a red flag for me when I considered which methodology I wanted to experiment with.
Also, this was one of the reasons I used a "bare-naked" cavity without inserts for fear of mechanical vibration, outgassing, etc, etc.
I've learned that each methodology has is positives and negatives, non of which totally eliminate them from consideration IMO...just happen to have committed to EmDrive myself.
p.s. Glad you were able to attend the workshop.
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
Sure, but that potential energy just comes from they kinetic energy of the fuel before it was burned. All frames will agree that the net energy released is the same, that of the chemical energy of the fuel in the ships frame assuming that was all converted to kinetic energy between the ship and exhaust. A rocket that does a burn from a frame at rest wrt earth, one moving at the exhaust velocity and one moving at very high speed will use the same energy in the burn as calculated by all observers yet the ships kinetic energy gain is extrodinarily higher for the fast frames. That is real and useful and it's similar to the Oberth effect. It is well known that the final stage of a multistage rocket can gain far more kinetic energy from its own fuel than chemical energy alone contained in that fuel. Rocket engineers use that.
Also, your comment regarding currents is interesting. Since we know a photon rocket becomes near 100% efficient as the rocket nears the speed of light, I have wondered if there is an interaction between electrons in they skin moving near c and co moving EM waves that couple so efficiently that a lot of kinetic energy is gained by the electrons and thus the ship somehow. Just a though.
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the 10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. :)
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. :)
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
One scenario is where the vacant emDrive has the effect and the dielectric insert only amplifies the effect to somewhat desirable levels. Whether the dielectric is simply influencing the field or is ablative has not been established experimentally and reported by any experimenter. Before and after weighings of dielectric materials as well as examining the inside of the frustum for any coating from ablative dielectrics would be an indicator.
-
...
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Radiation pressure equations are considered in the attached paper by Rothman & Boughn in 2008. Yes the lateral component of inertia (consequent upon the momentum of the current) induced in a reflector by absorption of em energy, may be symmetric but if the ends of a resonant chamber are not the same size then the duration of the containment of that inertia must be asymmetric between the ends. If the duration is asymmetric then the consequence would surely be acceleration of the entire device.
This argument only holds if the inertia of charges is a consequence of interaction with all charges. It is a wildly divergent paradigm but one that could provide an explanation for the generation of thrust we are trying to understand.
-
...
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Radiation pressure equations are considered in the attached paper by Rothman & Boughn in 2008. Yes the lateral component of inertia (consequent upon the momentum of the current) induced in a reflector by absorption of em energy, may be symmetric but if the ends of a resonant chamber are not the same size then the duration of the containment of that inertia must be asymmetric between the ends. If the duration is asymmetric then the consequence would surely be acceleration of the entire device.
This argument only holds if the inertia of charges is a consequence of interaction with all charges. It is a wildly divergent paradigm but one that could provide an explanation for the generation of thrust we are trying to understand.
Ref:
Rothman & Boughn in 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310v5.pdf
A number of papers address the issue of radiation reaction. The following relate to the emDrive systems as well as Mach Effects Thruster (MET) Here are a few papers by Dr. Fearn on Radiation Reaction.
2013
arXiv:1301.7051 [pdf, ps, other]
On radiation reaction and the [x,p ] commutator for an accelerating charge
H. Fearn
2012
arXiv:1212.4469 [pdf, ps, other]
Radiation Reaction Force on a Particle
Fearn's List of Papers on CSU Fullerton web site
https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/pubs.pdf
Papers on Arxiv by author
Rothman's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Rothman_T/0/1/0/all/0/1
Boughn's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Boughn_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
Fearn's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Fearn+heidi/0/1/0/all/0/1
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
There was not a lot said about the "Theory" of the EM Drive. Based on what was said, it may work with or without a dielectric, due to the Mach Effect. Fluctuating energy density is equivalent to fluctuating mass density, as required by the physics.
As for my presentation, if you have read my paper, you've already seen everything that was in it. Verbally, I gave the gist of the paper and mostly answered questions. I also messed up with the laser pointer/slide changer quite a bit, so it's far from a great performance.
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
-
Towards the end of the last day there were about 8 presentations with a 10 minute time slot. Dr. Woodward gave up a good portion of his time to allow others to speak and limited his time to 10 minutes. Various topics were discussed including Todd's ten minutes of quantum gravity.
In another ten minute delivery, Paul Nation's PPT on "Photon Production from the Quantum Vacuum. was presented briefly. The slides with four methods were used to mention McCulloch's use of dynamic Casimir force and Unruh radiation which is an interpretation of Hawking radiation. Interesting, Nation cites as the fourth source of photon production is parametric amplification, and proceeds to connect the four sources of production.
Note that Woodward cites in his patents, book and other works the use of parametric amplification.
The speculation continues of possibly common ground between emDrive and Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) suggests that there are common effects at the root with various types of amplification at the quantum level as noted above and at the general relativity level. However, the experiments still need a rigorous wringing out of errors and artifacts.
References
Photon Production from the Quantum Vacuum
Paul D. Nation
http://www.ncts.ncku.edu.tw/phys/qis/120213/files/0216-Paul_D_Nation.pdf
Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive
McCulloch
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf
-
More tests are definitely needed, but it seems to me that Monomorphics latest results confirm those of Yang: that 'thrust' in a cavity with no dielectric and an external power source comes from thermal heating (artifact, not actual).
I seem to recollect that the Eagleworks and Cannae tests that produced 'thrust' all involved dielectrics. (Apologies, but to me these devices presumably function in much the same way.)
Hence, workable any theory of operation for must include the reason for requiring a dielectric. (though again, more tests are needed).
(Also need to account for the greatly reduced 'thrust' in vacuum conditions.)
-
More tests are definitely needed, but it seems to me that Monomorphics latest results confirm those of Yang: that 'thrust' in a cavity with no dielectric and an external power source comes from thermal heating (artifact, not actual).
I seem to recollect that the Eagleworks and Cannae tests that produced 'thrust' all involved dielectrics. (Apologies, but to me these devices presumably function in much the same way.)
Hence, workable any theory of operation for must include the reason for requiring a dielectric. (though again, more tests are needed).
(Also need to account for the greatly reduced 'thrust' in vacuum conditions.)
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
-
Hi TheTraveller, I am not a naysayer but to claim that Dave got a valid result is deceptive. I don't even think Dave would claim that he got any thrust. His rig needs a lot more work and he plans to convert to solid state. Also I have looked through your Google group which has a lot of interesting material which I had not seen before. It is a good resource I hope you keep working on it. However i cannot find your 8mN results. If they are not available to the general public or of sufficiently high standard to be conclusive then they would have to be discounted as well. I do not see any builders yet producing conclusive data and experiments that don't have a long way to go in terms of validity and reproducibility. I am interested to see the builders get more organised and produce something good enough to be judged scientific. Maybe we will see something by the end of 2016?
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. :)
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
-
do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies
Bob, your enthusiasm about EmDrive and physics is commendable!
It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel.
A rocket that does a burn from a frame at rest wrt earth, one moving at the exhaust velocity and one moving at very high speed will use the same energy in the burn as calculated by all observers yet the ships kinetic energy gain is extrodinarily higher for the fast frames.
Those statements are not correct. The change in kinetic energy of both closed systems is exactly the same, even though the final kinetic energy may be much larger in the high speed reference frame. You are neglecting the loss of kinetic energy of the exhausted propellant (as has been mentioned before).
In classical Newtonian physics as well as in special relativity and general relativity, energy and momentum are conserved in all non-accelerating (inertial) reference frames. If your math doesn't show this, then it is not correct. In the case of rocket stages, it is because you are not properly accounting for the kinetic energy in the exhaust. If EmDrive obeys Newtonian physics, then it (in all closed systems) will also conserve energy and momentum in all inertial reference frames. If it doesn't, then that is obviously a different scenario.
Here is a link that simplifies the question and might help explain the apparent paradox to you:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602)
And yes, I do happen to have a degree in physics, in case you were wondering.
(Hopefully this post is polite enough to avoid mod filtering.)
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. :)
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
I am going to update my pdf file to include an analysis of the rocket equation. Your misconception comes from the fact that the rocket has constant acceleration with constant burning rate of chemical fuel, but you fail to acknowledge that the fuel at later times has more kinetic energy than earlier times, and that kinetic energy was provided by earlier burnt and ejected fuel. For MET or EMDriveThere is no dM with high kinetic energy to eject, so the analogy with an constant acceleration with constant consumed power rocket does not help them. My update will clarify just that.
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
It is a solid no.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
Another solid no.
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
They each does not produce any thrust.
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
It is in the first answer above (the "rocket analogy" part).
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
Thanks.
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
From my experience, Your 18.4mN is above possible Lorentz force in your setup. You might want to look into the thermal expansion of your power leads to the magnetron. Thanks.
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use. ???
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188427;image)
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
I will try it after I am sure that the results are conclusive. That needs a little bit time.
On the other hand I am not sure this is not only wasted time this way, if there is a "open" waveguide port (maybe 50Ohm) instead of a metallic plate. Any thoughts about?
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use. ???
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use. ???
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
OK the over unity problem also remains (and gets even worse) without dielectric in the frequency range around 2.15GHz!
Some thoughts:
For the TE01p mode the cutoff frequency wihout HDPE at the small diameter is roughly 2.3GHz while the resonant frequency of the truncated frustum for this mode is ~2.168 GHz.
This problem will be the same for TM212 without dielectric.
Regarding to the reflection coefficient above 1, this may be possible when the small diameter is still below the cutoff diameter. In this case β in this plane becomes pure imaginary(...)!
Add
Based on the last results I will test TM212 with dielectric.
-
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Thank you for reminding me to run an IR test. Have confirmed NO RESONANCE in the wedge emdrive. Looks like the IR is escaping around the bolted seams in the middle. Soldering the seams is going to be mandatory. Will work on that next and repeat the IR test. IR image of phase change collar after powered run also included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dx0JWDTy9A
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
-
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
As I shared some time ago, SPR verify the mode using a moveable internal probe to map the E & H field patterns.
With high built quality frustums with thick end plates of 6-10mm of Cu or Al, doing thermal end plate mapping is not really possible and that is why, as it was explained to me, SPR use non thermal means to confirm excited mode.
As for the TE012 tests, as you know, they were the 1st tests EW tried. Back then the expertise of doing the measurements, tuning the frustum, the accuracy of the freq tracking system, system generated errors, etc were very basic and I suggest any issues EW had with TE012 were due more to learning curve that mode stability. Paul did share he wanted to go back and redo the TE012 test series but he is now retired and that will probably not happen.
-
Hi TheTraveller, I am not a naysayer but to claim that Dave got a valid result is deceptive. I don't even think Dave would claim that he got any thrust. His rig needs a lot more work and he plans to convert to solid state. Also I have looked through your Google group which has a lot of interesting material which I had not seen before. It is a good resource I hope you keep working on it. However i cannot find your 8mN results. If they are not available to the general public or of sufficiently high standard to be conclusive then they would have to be discounted as well. I do not see any builders yet producing conclusive data and experiments that don't have a long way to go in terms of validity and reproducibility. I am interested to see the builders get more organised and produce something good enough to be judged scientific. Maybe we will see something by the end of 2016?
Deceptive?
18.4mN is what Dave claims. If you have issues with that take it up with Dave. I'm just quoting what he claims.
-
Thank you for reminding me to run an IR test. Have confirmed NO RESONANCE in the wedge emdrive. Looks like the IR is escaping around the bolted seams in the middle. Soldering the seams is going to be mandatory. Will work on that next and repeat the IR test. IR image of phase change collar after powered run also included.
If you can please do a eddy current FEKO analysis of this frustum build, at the assumed resonance and mode, believe I can explain what is happening and why you have no thrust.
Dave soldered all his seams and still had arching across the seam joints as the solder had not entirely filled the inside edge of the end plate to the side wall and as his mode had eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall, there was arching where the surface was no continuous.
Even a scratch can cause a break in the eddy currents as those eddy currents only flow down to 5x skin depth or to a depth as in this table. As you can see from this attachment, a scratch 7um deep will stop / break eddy current flow, even though there is Cu further down.
Imagine your flat panel to flat panel joints. Basically the entire inner surface of the frustum needs to be an unbroken Cu surface, including any joint that eddy current needs to flow across.
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
-
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
I am going to update my pdf file to include an analysis of the rocket equation. Your misconception comes from the fact that the rocket has constant acceleration with constant burning rate of chemical fuel, but you fail to acknowledge that the fuel at later times has more kinetic energy than earlier times, and that kinetic energy was provided by earlier burnt and ejected fuel. For MET or EMDriveThere is no dM with high kinetic energy to eject, so the analogy with an constant acceleration with constant consumed power rocket does not help them. My update will clarify just that.
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
It is a solid no.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
Another solid no.
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
They each does not produce any thrust.
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
It is in the first answer above (the "rocket analogy" part).
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
Thanks.
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
-
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
-
Stipulating they are both producing thrust, what effects are unique to each, and what do effects or properties do they have in common?
-
do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies
Bob, your enthusiasm about EmDrive and physics is commendable!
It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel.
A rocket that does a burn from a frame at rest wrt earth, one moving at the exhaust velocity and one moving at very high speed will use the same energy in the burn as calculated by all observers yet the ships kinetic energy gain is extrodinarily higher for the fast frames.
Those statements are not correct. The change in kinetic energy of both closed systems is exactly the same, even though the final kinetic energy may be much larger in the high speed reference frame. You are neglecting the loss of kinetic energy of the exhausted propellant (as has been mentioned before).
In classical Newtonian physics as well as in special relativity and general relativity, energy and momentum are conserved in all non-accelerating (inertial) reference frames. If your math doesn't show this, then it is not correct. In the case of rocket stages, it is because you are not properly accounting for the kinetic energy in the exhaust. If EmDrive obeys Newtonian physics, then it (in all closed systems) will also conserve energy and momentum in all inertial reference frames. If it doesn't, then that is obviously a different scenario.
Here is a link that simplifies the question and might help explain the apparent paradox to you:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602 (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602)
And yes, I do happen to have a degree in physics, in case you were wondering.
(Hopefully this post is polite enough to avoid mod filtering.)
It seems to me that you are actually restating everything I just said yet then claiming I didn't understand it in the first place! Please go back and carefully read my words again. They are factually correct. We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong? You probably thought that I think that the 'extra' kinetic energy is somehow 'over unity'. No, I never said that or meant that. Perhaps you are interpreting them from a different frame of reference than the one I wrote them in. :) Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
P.S.
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use. ???
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
OK the over unity problem also remains (and gets even worse) without dielectric in the frequency range around 2.15GHz!
Some thoughts:
For the TE01p mode the cutoff frequency wihout HDPE at the small diameter is roughly 2.3GHz while the resonant frequency of the truncated frustum for this mode is ~2.168 GHz.
This problem will be the same for TM212 without dielectric.
Regarding to the reflection coefficient above 1, this may be possible when the small diameter is still below the cutoff diameter. In this case β in this plane becomes pure imaginary(...)!
Add
Based on the last results I will test TM212 with dielectric.
X-RaY, you are giving me only half of what I need.
In the first simulation where you have the dielectric insert. When it was fed from the small end, I think the antenna is inside the dielectric. That is why the power is so low, compared to when it was fed from the big end.
In the second simulation, you only provided the plot for the big end, not the small end. The large value is not an issue. It only means that the impedance is capacitive, or negative. This is what is expected.
I think the dielectric is going to corrupt the differential data I'm looking for. What I need to know is the reflection coefficient from each end. Then I know the impedance at each end, it implies we know the power absorbed at each end.
According to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, a gradient in the absorbed power and or lost power will create a gravitoelectric field in the metal, dragging it forward. I notice that your color plot has a readout for V/m. Can it also do Watts and Vars? A color plot of Watts and Vars would also be awesome!
Thanks.
-
We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong? You probably thought that I think that the 'extra' kinetic energy is somehow 'over unity'. No, I never said that or meant that. Perhaps you are interpreting them from a different frame of reference than the one I wrote them in. :) Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
P.S.
If you ignore the propellant and only talk about the accelerating rocket, then yes, its kinetic energy is increasing faster in reference frames moving relative to it (the faster the relative movement, the greater the increase over a unit of time). This does not make sense, and that's one of the reasons I doubt a truly propellentless drive is possible. There has to be something that offsets that kinetic energy. Moreover, this cannot be potential energy since it has to change as you pick faster moving reference frames. It can be the kinetic energy of a propellant, the energy of a photon (which also varies in different frames due to doppler shift), or something else that I can't think of right now... otherwise you get paradoxes like this (different rates of kinetic energy change in different frames). If I understand it correctly, in any "real" scenarios these paradoxes do not exist, and are easily resolved if you take into account the entire system.
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The EmDrive based IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
-
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
First, you are again providing no evidence to back up you statements. Making baseless assertions, or assertions backed by "trust me, I heard its true" does nothing useful.
Second, Tellmeagain's paper is refuting the really terrible logic in Woodward's paper. This does not have any relation to any experimental results, or the actual Mach effect theory. That paper, while referring to METs, does not bring up any of the real reasons why METs are not propellantless thrusters and instead pretends that they are propellantless.
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
-
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
First, you are again providing no evidence to back up you statements. Making baseless assertions, or assertions backed by "trust me, I heard its true" does nothing useful.
Second, Tellmeagain's paper is refuting the really terrible logic in Woodward's paper. This does not have any relation to any experimental results, or the actual Mach effect theory. That paper, while referring to METs, does not bring up any of the real reasons why METs are not propellantless thrusters and instead pretends that they are propellantless.
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
Got it! When TT included Max force and power and half way between.... (too much information)....., I guess I stopped thinking! And did not read the question carefully.
-
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
There is no original rest frame. The ship has matched velocity to dock or land or orbit many times. In LEO, in LMO, at the trans Mars space station, on many asteroids and smaller low gravity well moons and around many gas giant moons that have too large a gravity well for the Clarke's 0.1g drives to climb out of and need an orbit established.
This idea there is some original reference frame is just nuts and matters NOT for the calculations needed to match orbit or docking / landing requirements. It is all driven by the needed Dv and if the EmDrives on the IXS Clarke can produce the required acceleration / Dv.
-
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
There is no original rest frame. The ship has matched velocity to dock or land or orbit many times. In LEO, in LMO, at the trans Mars space station, on many asteroids and smaller low gravity well moons and around many gas giant moons that have too large a gravity well for the Clarke's 0.1g drives to climb out of and need an orbit established.
This idea there is some original reference frame is just nuts and matters NOT for the calculations needed to match orbit or docking / landing requirements. It is all driven by the needed Dv and if the EmDrives on the IXS Clarke can produce the required acceleration / Dv.
You have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them.
-
You have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them.
There is only one reference frame of interest to the crew of the ISX Clarke and that is the ship. Outside that they need to know the distance and velocity relative to their next destination so the needed Dv can be calculated and the necessary energy applied to the ship's EmDrives to achieve the necessary Dv to arrive at zero relative velocity to the next destination.
-
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right... :)
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper.
-
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right... :)
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper.
I know what the results are for many EmDrive builds. I have seen force generation in my experiments that closely match those of others. My tests involved an EmDrive sitting on a digital scale generating downward force, so thermal is out. Only connection to the EmDrive was via flexible coax at right angle to main axis, as then neither Lorentz nor cable expansion could generate 8mN of downward force. EMC shield between EmDrive & scale. Inverting the EmDrive caused similar weight decrease as increase. Full power Rf on periods were 5-8 seconds. Force generation was immediate as the freq was earlier adjusted to lowest reflected at a few watts versus 95W forward during force tests.
-
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right... :)
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper.
Flyby, that 100uN Lorentz force estimation is from me. I did experiment (see my arxiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752, pdf on that page) with a few Amperes(1.X amperes; actually this is the ground loop current from 6.5 Ampere DC supply current in my setting), in earth field, loop of 40cm x 10cm(typical Eagleworks kind of experiment), and the Lorentz is about a few tens of uN. So it is a rough estimation. For RFmwguys' experiment, the loop size is much smaller (because there is no ground loop, also power leads are twisted), amperes about 1/3 of that (400-500mA), the Lorentz force should be much less than 100uN. It is used here as a very safe ceiling. EW's "thrusts" are also in the same range.
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far... :)
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT then (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far... :)
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
-
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
That is indeed a real possibility. The engineering solution of looping the wire is a good solution to allow for a dynamic movement of a contracting/expanding wire, but it does not prevent the generation of forces due to thermal expansion.
The problem is caused because you always end up with an external power wire ending perpendicular to the torsion balance setup .
You can only "nullify" those momentum forces when they run dead center through the suspending wire, but...the slightest offset will provoke a sideways momentum and ruin the setup.
That's why some time ago, I suggested the use of an electrical slip ring. To minimize friction, might be best to use copper wheels instead of brushes ? That would probably solve the issue with the thermal expansion momentum of the power wire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bDha0szIY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bDha0szIY)
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT then (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far... :)
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
If this is the cause, shouldn't the measured forces be maximized alongside return power to the RF source?
-
You have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them.
There is only one reference frame of interest to the crew of the ISX Clarke and that is the ship. Outside that they need to know the distance and velocity relative to their next destination so the needed Dv can be calculated and the necessary energy applied to the ship's EmDrives to achieve the necessary Dv to arrive at zero relative velocity to the next destination.
As has been stated already, the ship's frame is non-inertial because it is accelerating. They probably don't want to do any calculations in that frame if they can help it. Calculating the energy can be tricky due to "ficicious" forces, see here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2560.pdf
If you are going to ignore conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental results in physics, then you how can you even trust F=m*a?
-
X-RaY, you are giving me only half of what I need.
In the first simulation where you have the dielectric insert. When it was fed from the small end, I think the antenna is inside the dielectric. That is why the power is so low, compared to when it was fed from the big end.
In the second simulation, you only provided the plot for the big end, not the small end. The large value is not an issue. It only means that the impedance is capacitive, or negative. This is what is expected.
I think the dielectric is going to corrupt the differential data I'm looking for. What I need to know is the reflection coefficient from each end. Then I know the impedance at each end, it implies we know the power absorbed at each end.
According to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, a gradient in the absorbed power and or lost power will create a gravitoelectric field in the metal, dragging it forward. I notice that your color plot has a readout for V/m. Can it also do Watts and Vars? A color plot of Watts and Vars would also be awesome!
Thanks.
Here is the missing results of the brady cone without HDPE- disc.
related to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1594460#msg1594460
@Rodal
The simulations of the same frustum with HDPE and TM21 waveguide excitation (~2 GHz) coming soon.
-
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
That is indeed a real possibility. The engineering solution of looping the wire is a good solution to allow for a dynamic movement of a contracting/expanding wire, but it does not prevent the generation of forces due to thermal expansion.
The problem is caused because you always end up with an external power wire ending perpendicular to the torsion balance setup .
You can only "nullify" those momentum forces when they run dead center through the suspending wire, but...the slightest offset will provoke a sideways momentum and ruin the setup.
That's why some time ago, I suggested the use of an electrical slip ring. To minimize friction, might be best to use copper wheels instead of brushes ? That would probably solve the issue with the thermal expansion momentum of the power wire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bDha0szIY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bDha0szIY)
I have some brushes and holders I can supply free that were designed to provide high power (2.5Kw) to a high frequency air-bearing spindle motor that are high silver content which makes them very slippery on a copper or brass commutator if anyone needs.
Very Best,
Shell
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. :)
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
I am going to update my pdf file to include an analysis of the rocket equation. Your misconception comes from the fact that the rocket has constant acceleration with constant burning rate of chemical fuel, but you fail to acknowledge that the fuel at later times has more kinetic energy than earlier times, and that kinetic energy was provided by earlier burnt and ejected fuel. For MET or EMDriveThere is no dM with high kinetic energy to eject, so the analogy with an constant acceleration with constant consumed power rocket does not help them. My update will clarify just that.
t
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
It is a solid no.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
Another solid no.
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
They each does not produce any thrust.
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
It is in the first answer above (the "rocket analogy" part).
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
Thanks.
Tellmeagain, thanks for the answers!
For 1) Please tell me how, in your own example problem, you would break up the problem into ten steps.
What is the kinetic energy of subsequent steps and how do you add them and what is the total, since you say my numbers are incorrect?
For 2) I understand you are saying that the MET or EmDrive cannot work at all then. If it worked at all then you say it would always give a violation, yes? Can you give a reason why it couldn't work at least as well as simple light?
For 4) A few folks have asserted that I do not understand how a rocket works because I did not exhaustively mention the exhaust. ;D No, I know all about that. You seem to think that since the MET or EmDrive supposedly do not have an exhaust, then there is nothing to give that 'apparent' large gain in kinetic energy because there is nothing to borrow kinetic energy from. Yes?
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188427;image)
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
There it is. I increase the mesh density for this sims.
Port impedance: 50 Ohm
-
We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong?
BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
You have a degree in physics? Awesome! There are lots of parts of physics and mechanics may not have been your specialty.
The factually wrong part is that you say the kinetic energy ends up higher. The ship's payload kinetic energy ends up much higher in a reference frame with a higher initial velocity, but the ship's propellant exhaust kinetic energy ends up so much lower that it exactly cancels out all of the extra payload kinetic energy so that the change in kinetic energy of the system does not depend on reference frame.
Let's do some math together. (And then stop talking about this, forever.)
A rocket starts with mass of payload and a mass of propellant. It will use chemical potential energy to burn the propellant and eject it out at the back to gain velocity.
Initial kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass payload + mass propellant) * velocity initial^2.
Depending on the ISP of the propellant and rocket engine and other efficiencies, the rocket payload will gain a certain delta v and the exhaust will have a certain delta v exhaust. These velocities are relative to the rocket and do not depend on reference frame. You can look up the exhaust velocities for your rocket engine and calculate the delta v using the rocket equation and your mass fractions.
velocity final payload = velocity initial + delta v
For a real rocket, it's a bit more complicated because the absolute velocity in your chosen reference frame of the propellant varies between what's kicked out at the start of the burn and what's kicked out at the end, so you have to integrate over the velocity profile to get the total energy. To make the math easier, let's consider an instantaneous burn. It doesn't change the conclusions.
velocity final exhaust = velocity initial - delta v exhaust
The delta v of the exhaust is in the opposite direction of the delta v of the payload. By conservation of momentum, we know the relationship between these:
mass payload * delta v = mass exhaust * delta v exhaust
(We'll need that in a moment.)
Next we will show that the change of kinetic energy in the system has no dependency at all on initial velocity, that is the change in kinetic energy does not depend on which reference frame we choose to use to measure velocity.
Final kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass payload) * (velocity initial + delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust) * (velocity initial - delta v exhaust)^2
The difference in kinetic energy is the difference between the two systems:
Delta kinetic energy = Final kinetic energy - Initial kinetic energy
= 1/2 (mass payload) * (velocity initial + delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust) * (velocity initial - delta v exhaust)^2
- 1/2 (mass payload + mass exhaust) * velocity initial^2.
Multiply it out...
Delta kinetic energy =
1/2 (mass payload)*(velocity initial)^2 + (mass payload)*(velocity initial)*(delta v) + 1/2 (mass payload)*(delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)^2 - (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)*(delta v exhaust) + 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(delta v exhaust)^2
- 1/2 (mass payload)*(velocity initial)^2 - 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)^2
Use the conservation of momentum relation from above and simplify:
Delta kinetic energy =
1/2 (mass payload)*(delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust payload)*(delta v exhaust)^2
Pretty neat! That makes sense and you will note that the initial velocity does not appear in this equation at all. Therefore, the change in kinetic energy is independent of the initial velocity and therefore independent of reference frame. While the final kinetic energy of just the payload may increase much more in some reference frames than in others, energy is fully conserved because of the corresponding change of kinetic energy of the exhaust. The change in energy is always dependent only on the potential chemical energy used and not on the reference frame.
Energy is conserved in all reference frames and all is well with Newtonian physics and the Universe. Whew.
For now.
Some people (for example, Shawyer) have claimed that the EmDrive does not work that way and there is a constant acceleration regardless of reference frame. In a closed system, that would clearly violate conservation of both energy and momentum. From my physics background, that is a clear indication to me that the EmDrive is NOT a closed system. The next question for me would be, what is it interacting with that makes it not a closed system?
The rest of the mass of the Universe (I am respectful of this opinion, but personally quite doubtful.)
The quantum vacuum (I am also doubtful of this, but it brings up interesting ideas, which generally don't seem to resolve the CoE problem.)
The local gravitational field (Now this would be intriguing if it panned out.)
Something boring that no one cares about (Local EM fields, thermal air currents, etc.)
Something else?
We won't know until there are reproducible examples that can be independently verified and tested in different environments and reference frames. God speed, builders.
-
We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong? You probably thought that I think that the 'extra' kinetic energy is somehow 'over unity'. No, I never said that or meant that. Perhaps you are interpreting them from a different frame of reference than the one I wrote them in. :) Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
P.S.
If you ignore the propellant and only talk about the accelerating rocket, then yes, its kinetic energy is increasing faster in reference frames moving relative to it (the faster the relative movement, the greater the increase over a unit of time). This does not make sense, and that's one of the reasons I doubt a truly propellentless drive is possible. There has to be something that offsets that kinetic energy. Moreover, this cannot be potential energy since it has to change as you pick faster moving reference frames. It can be the kinetic energy of a propellant, the energy of a photon (which also varies in different frames due to doppler shift), or something else that I can't think of right now... otherwise you get paradoxes like this (different rates of kinetic energy change in different frames). If I understand it correctly, in any "real" scenarios these paradoxes do not exist, and are easily resolved if you take into account the entire system.
I didn't ignore it, it just didn't mention it. But folks should remember that if momentum is conserved in a non obvious way, it's still conserved and if it is then there also must be some aspect of the greater universe that acts just like the exhaust. In other words, the MET or EmDrive must be borrowing kinetic energy from that source like the rocket borrows kinetic energy from its own exhaust.
BTW, it's very funny that I made a statement I got from rocket experts "the upper stage can generate much more usable kinetic energy than the total chemical energy of the propellants it carries." a perfectly factual statement of which there was a rush to "correct" me on. ;D
-
But folks should remember that if momentum is conserved in a non obvious way, it's still conserved and if it is then there also must be some aspect of the greater universe that acts just like the exhaust. In other words, the MET or EmDrive must be borrowing kinetic energy from that source like the rocket borrows kinetic energy from its own exhaust.
OK, it's understood that it has to "borrow" it from some source, but the tricky part is that the amount of the "borrowed" energy must depend on the reference frame of the observer, i.e. it will have to "borrow" more from the point of view of an external moving observer (the faster the relative movement, the more "borrowing" will occur). In other words, this has to be a very tricky mechanism. If it was "pushing" against "the rest of the universe" in a primitive way, this wouldn't be possible (i.e. it would be harder and harder for it to accelerate as it gains speed relative to the CMB or distant galaxies).
-
We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong?
BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
You have a degree in physics? Awesome! There are lots of parts of physics and mechanics may not have been your specialty.
The factually wrong part is that you say the kinetic energy ends up higher. The ship's payload kinetic energy ends up much higher in a reference frame with a higher initial velocity, but the ship's propellant exhaust kinetic energy ends up so much lower that it exactly cancels out all of the extra payload kinetic energy so that the change in kinetic energy of the system does not depend on reference frame.
Let's do some math together. (And then stop talking about this, forever.)
A rocket starts with mass of payload and a mass of propellant. It will use chemical potential energy to burn the propellant and eject it out at the back to gain velocity.
Initial kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass payload + mass propellant) * velocity initial^2.
Depending on the ISP of the propellant and rocket engine and other efficiencies, the rocket payload will gain a certain delta v and the exhaust will have a certain delta v exhaust. These velocities are relative to the rocket and do not depend on reference frame. You can look up the exhaust velocities for your rocket engine and calculate the delta v using the rocket equation and your mass fractions.
velocity final payload = velocity initial + delta v
For a real rocket, it's a bit more complicated because the absolute velocity in your chosen reference frame of the propellant varies between what's kicked out at the start of the burn and what's kicked out at the end, so you have to integrate over the velocity profile to get the total energy. To make the math easier, let's consider an instantaneous burn. It doesn't change the conclusions.
velocity final exhaust = velocity initial - delta v exhaust
The delta v of the exhaust is in the opposite direction of the delta v of the payload. By conservation of momentum, we know the relationship between these:
mass payload * delta v = mass exhaust * delta v exhaust
(We'll need that in a moment.)
Next we will show that the change of kinetic energy in the system has no dependency at all on initial velocity, that is the change in kinetic energy does not depend on which reference frame we choose to use to measure velocity.
Final kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass payload) * (velocity initial + delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust) * (velocity initial - delta v exhaust)^2
The difference in kinetic energy is the difference between the two systems:
Delta kinetic energy = Final kinetic energy - Initial kinetic energy
= 1/2 (mass payload) * (velocity initial + delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust) * (velocity initial - delta v exhaust)^2
- 1/2 (mass payload + mass exhaust) * velocity initial^2.
Multiply it out...
Delta kinetic energy =
1/2 (mass payload)*(velocity initial)^2 + (mass payload)*(velocity initial)*(delta v) + 1/2 (mass payload)*(delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)^2 - (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)*(delta v exhaust) + 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(delta v exhaust)^2
- 1/2 (mass payload)*(velocity initial)^2 - 1/2 (mass exhaust)*(velocity initial)^2
Use the conservation of momentum relation from above and simplify:
Delta kinetic energy =
1/2 (mass payload)*(delta v)^2
+ 1/2 (mass exhaust payload)*(delta v exhaust)^2
Pretty neat! That makes sense and you will note that the initial velocity does not appear in this equation at all. Therefore, the change in kinetic energy is independent of the initial velocity and therefore independent of reference frame. While the final kinetic energy of just the payload may increase much more in some reference frames than in others, energy is fully conserved because of the corresponding change of kinetic energy of the exhaust. The change in energy is always dependent only on the potential chemical energy used and not on the reference frame.
Energy is conserved in all reference frames and all is well with Newtonian physics and the Universe. Whew.
For now.
Some people (for example, Shawyer) have claimed that the EmDrive does not work that way and there is a constant acceleration regardless of reference frame. In a closed system, that would clearly violate conservation of both energy and momentum. From my physics background, that is a clear indication to me that the EmDrive is NOT a closed system. The next question for me would be, what is it interacting with that makes it not a closed system?
The rest of the mass of the Universe (I am respectful of this opinion, but personally quite doubtful.)
The quantum vacuum (I am also doubtful of this, but it brings up interesting ideas, which generally don't seem to resolve the CoE problem.)
The local gravitational field (Now this would be intriguing if it panned out.)
Something boring that no one cares about (Local EM fields, thermal air currents, etc.)
Something else?
We won't know until there are reproducible examples that can be independently verified and tested in different environments and reference frames. God speed, builders.
Thanks but everything you've said I already know and have said in different words many times myself. I do wonder sometimes if folks read what I write and/or if they are predisposed to find objections? I assume you meant by your comment that I may not be well versed in this area that you are. How well versed are you?
One thing, you state "The factually wrong part is that you say the kinetic energy ends up higher." And then you prove that the kinetic energy of the rocket ends up higher. ;D The point you take such great pains to correct me on I have no disagreement with, that the actual total kinetic energy gain of the system as a whole is the same as computed from any observer frame. I know that full well but it's irrelevant to the problem I am debating. We are not riding the system as a whole to our destination! The effect is a form of the Oberth effect. It's very real and very useful.
I agree with your comment "Energy is conserved in all reference frames and all is well with Newtonian physics and the Universe". The Work-Energy Theorem shows how any device accelerating under a constant force would meet this requirement in any frame.
Also, I find this a very interesting discussion with many facets. I don't think it should be just shut down. I am glad you are open to the possibility the EmDrive or variants may really work. Thanks.
.
-
As for the wires heating up and causing thrust by stiffening: Why can't you put the conductors in the exact center axis of the balance beam? You could use button contacts, or perhaps mercury.
-
But folks should remember that if momentum is conserved in a non obvious way, it's still conserved and if it is then there also must be some aspect of the greater universe that acts just like the exhaust. In other words, the MET or EmDrive must be borrowing kinetic energy from that source like the rocket borrows kinetic energy from its own exhaust.
OK, it's understood that it has to "borrow" it from some source, but the tricky part is that the amount of the "borrowed" energy must depend on the reference frame of the observer, i.e. it will have to "borrow" more from the point of view of an external moving observer (the faster the relative movement, the more "borrowing" will occur). In other words, this has to be a very tricky mechanism. If it was "pushing" against "the rest of the universe" in a primitive way, this wouldn't be possible (i.e. it would be harder and harder for it to accelerate as it gains speed relative to the CMB or distant galaxies).
I disagree. The rocket 'borrows' from its own exhaust as seen by observers and all observers see a different amount depending on the frame they observe in. It shouldn't be fundamentally different for a MET or EmDrive. The fundamental unit is the force the device is able to generate in its own reference frame. The rest of the universe will adjust.
-
Tellmeagain, thanks for the answers!
You helped me to improve my pdf file. Thank you!
For 1) Please tell me how, in your own example problem, you would break up the problem into ten steps.
What is the kinetic energy of subsequent steps and how do you add them and what is the total, since you say my numbers are incorrect?
For 2) I understand you are saying that the MET or EmDrive cannot work at all then. If it worked at all then you say it would always give a violation, yes? Can you give a reason why it couldn't work at least as well as simple light?
For 4) A few folks have asserted that I do not understand how a rocket works because I did not exhaustively mention the exhaust. ;D No, I know all about that. You seem to think that since the MET or EmDrive supposedly do not have an exhaust, then there is nothing to give that 'apparent' large gain in kinetic energy because there is nothing to borrow kinetic energy from. Yes?
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
Bob, you have a physics degree but I do not. So it seems I should be the one who ask and you be the one who answer. This discussion rapidly gets boring because what I want to say will not be much different from that of gargoyle99 or wicoe. Your understanding of the rocket equation is right. It is just that you use that to justify MET and EmDrive is questionable because one has exhaust and the others do not.
-
I disagree. The rocket 'borrows' from its own exhaust as seen by observers and all observers see a different amount depending on the frame they observe in. It shouldn't be fundamentally different for a MET or EmDrive. The fundamental unit is the force the device is able to generate in its own reference frame. The rest of the universe will adjust.
The observers in different frames see a different amount because it 'borrows' from the *kinetic* energy of the exhaust. This works because kinetic energy has the required property (i.e. it depends on the observer frame in the "right way"). The energy of a photon also has this property. What other forms of energy can have this property? I'm really curious...
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT then (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far... :)
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
Yes, Mr Li, it was getting to the point that I almost thought all was due to thermal expansion of wires. I even took a thermal video of the power lead nearby the cavity. Its on my youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-VGF1ViqjU
What you might not know is I stripped off the power leads from the torsion beam and then began to experiment with perpendicular then parallel loop locations in relation to the torsion beam. In the end, the magnetron began to fail and was unable to complete more than 5 or so observations. I saw little variation in beam displacement regardless of loop/harness location, but I was unable to continue more testing.
In the end, I could not 100% say I removed wire thermal expansion as an error source, but the 5 or so displacement tests seemed to indicate I was not getting displacement forces. Not scientific enough (too few samples) for a public test report to be issued.
p.s. While this chart could be considered the definitive test that thermal wire expansion is not the cause, there still wasn't enough data runs. This was probably my best chart, with seconds as the X axis and the red zone where power was "on". displacement is happening too rapidly for a temperature coefficient. I do note the peak variances where there is slight displacement differences. I attribute that probably to magnetron output stability. The average of this chart translated into 18.4mN
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-fNfLZjVCikc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAASk/xom5HSdE44Y/photo.jpg
-
I disagree. The rocket 'borrows' from its own exhaust as seen by observers and all observers see a different amount depending on the frame they observe in. It shouldn't be fundamentally different for a MET or EmDrive. The fundamental unit is the force the device is able to generate in its own reference frame. The rest of the universe will adjust.
The observers in different frames see a different amount because it 'borrows' from the *kinetic* energy of the exhaust. This works because kinetic energy has the required property (i.e. it depends on the observer frame in the "right way"). The energy of a photon also has this property. What other forms of energy can have this property? I'm really curious...
Me too but I'm not going to pretend to know the answer. ;D. If there were an exhaust in the form of photons with an enhanced momentum, it might come from those?
-
Tellmeagain, thanks for the answers!
You helped me to improve my pdf file. Thank you!
For 1) Please tell me how, in your own example problem, you would break up the problem into ten steps.
What is the kinetic energy of subsequent steps and how do you add them and what is the total, since you say my numbers are incorrect?
For 2) I understand you are saying that the MET or EmDrive cannot work at all then. If it worked at all then you say it would always give a violation, yes? Can you give a reason why it couldn't work at least as well as simple light?
For 4) A few folks have asserted that I do not understand how a rocket works because I did not exhaustively mention the exhaust. ;D No, I know all about that. You seem to think that since the MET or EmDrive supposedly do not have an exhaust, then there is nothing to give that 'apparent' large gain in kinetic energy because there is nothing to borrow kinetic energy from. Yes?
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
Bob, you have a physics degree but I do not. So it seems I should be the one who ask and you be the one who answer. This discussion rapidly gets boring because what I want to say will not be much different from that of gargoyle99 or wicoe. Your understanding of the rocket equation is right. It is just that you use that to justify MET and EmDrive is questionable because one has exhaust and the others do not.
Thanks. I'm also not going to claim I'm some true rocket expert. Also, I don't think I'm saying the Oberth effect of the rocket justifies the MET or EmDrive per se. But it helps me envision it. Still, I don't quite understand why my treatment of your example was wrong to you. I don't get why you wrote that Woodward would just add the first increment of kinetic energy ten times. I never got that from his paper at all.
Also, I thought that the discussion of the possibility of a constant force acting under a constant input power went beyond MET or EmDrive to basic classical mechanics so that was interesting to debate.
Thanks again.
-
I disagree. The rocket 'borrows' from its own exhaust as seen by observers and all observers see a different amount depending on the frame they observe in. It shouldn't be fundamentally different for a MET or EmDrive. The fundamental unit is the force the device is able to generate in its own reference frame. The rest of the universe will adjust.
The observers in different frames see a different amount because it 'borrows' from the *kinetic* energy of the exhaust. This works because kinetic energy has the required property (i.e. it depends on the observer frame in the "right way"). The energy of a photon also has this property. What other forms of energy can have this property? I'm really curious...
Me too but I'm not going to pretend to know the answer. ;D. If there were an exhaust in the form of photons with an enhanced momentum, it might come from those?
Relativistic energy-momentum relation doesn't seem to leave room for photons with enhanced momentum. Unless enhanced momentum means just higher energy. But that doesn't change anything, photon rocket is a photon rocket, no matter what wavelength it operates at.
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
There it is. I increase the mesh density for this sims.
Port impedance: 50 Ohm
The impedance without the insert had a high degree of asymmetry. Capacitive at about 1 Ohm and Resistive at about 500 Ohms. Here with the insert, there is high resistance in both directions and less asymmetry.
Thanks X-RaY!
-
Thanks. I'm also not going to claim I'm some true rocket expert. Also, I don't think I'm saying the Oberth effect of the rocket justifies the MET or EmDrive per se. But it helps me envision it. Still, I don't quite understand why my treatment of your example was wrong to you. I don't get why you wrote that Woodward would just add the first increment of kinetic energy ten times. I never got that from his paper at all.
Thanks again.
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
This is my understanding of the discussion between us.
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
There it is. I increase the mesh density for this sims.
Port impedance: 50 Ohm
The impedance without the insert had a high degree of asymmetry. Capacitive at about 1 Ohm and Resistive at about 500 Ohms. Here with the insert, there is high resistance in both directions and less asymmetry.
Thanks X-RaY!
From the viewpoint of the em-field, there is more space to propagate when the dielectric is present, more similar to the big end without a dielectric (effective diameter = small diameter*sqrt(eps_r)).
I am waiting for feko to complete a 2 port sim to get S21 and S12 data too. :)
This will take a couple of hours ::)
-
.....
Yes, Mr Li, it was getting to the point that I almost thought all was due to thermal expansion of wires. I even took a thermal video of the power lead nearby the cavity. Its on my youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-VGF1ViqjU
What you might not know is I stripped off the power leads from the torsion beam and then began to experiment with perpendicular then parallel loop locations in relation to the torsion beam. In the end, the magnetron began to fail and was unable to complete more than 5 or so observations. I saw little variation in beam displacement regardless of loop/harness location, but I was unable to continue more testing.
In the end, I could not 100% say I removed wire thermal expansion as an error source, but the 5 or so displacement tests seemed to indicate I was not getting displacement forces. Not scientific enough (too few samples) for a public test report to be issued.
p.s. While this chart could be considered the definitive test that thermal wire expansion is not the cause, there still wasn't enough data runs. This was probably my best chart, with seconds as the X axis and the red zone where power was "on". displacement is happening too rapidly for a temperature coefficient. I do note the peak variances where there is slight displacement differences. I attribute that probably to magnetron output stability. The average of this chart translated into 18.4mN
ahh... I didn't know you had indeed scanned the wiring for temperature.
Rfmwguy, is that the same current/voltage we see there that comes down from the wall plug?
As there is no increase in temperature, one can conclude there is barely to no additional linear expansion on that part. So if that is indeed the same wire that comes to the torsion setup, we can check off that possible cause also.... (It's starting to look better and better ! :) )
-
ahh... I didn't know you had indeed scanned the wiring for temperature.
Rfmwguy, is that the same current/voltage we see there that comes down from the wall plug?
As there is no increase in temperature, one can conclude there is barely to no additional linear expansion on that part. So if that is indeed the same wire that comes to the torsion setup, we can check off that possible cause also.... (It's starting to look better and better ! :) )
Small temperature increase can cause big difference. So before you check that off, better quantify it. For example, measure the force when runing the same amount of current (a few amperes AC in two leads and 500mA DC in another) through the leads without magnetron.
-
.....
Yes, Mr Li, it was getting to the point that I almost thought all was due to thermal expansion of wires. I even took a thermal video of the power lead nearby the cavity. Its on my youtube channel
What you might not know is I stripped off the power leads from the torsion beam and then began to experiment with perpendicular then parallel loop locations in relation to the torsion beam. In the end, the magnetron began to fail and was unable to complete more than 5 or so observations. I saw little variation in beam displacement regardless of loop/harness location, but I was unable to continue more testing.
In the end, I could not 100% say I removed wire thermal expansion as an error source, but the 5 or so displacement tests seemed to indicate I was not getting displacement forces. Not scientific enough (too few samples) for a public test report to be issued.
p.s. While this chart could be considered the definitive test that thermal wire expansion is not the cause, there still wasn't enough data runs. This was probably my best chart, with seconds as the X axis and the red zone where power was "on". displacement is happening too rapidly for a temperature coefficient. I do note the peak variances where there is slight displacement differences. I attribute that probably to magnetron output stability. The average of this chart translated into 18.4mN
ahh... I didn't know you had indeed scanned the wiring for temperature.
Rfmwguy, is that the same current/voltage we see there that comes down from the wall plug?
As there is no increase in temperature, one can conclude there is barely to no additional linear expansion on that part. So if that is indeed the same wire that comes to the torsion setup, we can check off that possible cause also.... (It's starting to look better and better ! :) )
Yes, it is 110VAC to the power supply which does the -4kV conversion. I am convinced I saw something real, but I do have to appreciate the high level of doubt there is about something so dramatic. This is the reason I did not publish a test report, was unable to complete the # of tests I wanted to. It did seem to me that there was no thermal change within 4 inches of the frustum, and therefore no expansion of the leads.
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
-
Small temperature increase can cause big difference. So before you check that off, better quantify it. For example, measure the force when runing the same amount of current (a few amperes AC in two leads and 500mA DC in another) through the leads without magnetron.
True, a live test is always better....
If we take a wire length of 3 meters (hanging from the ceiling), and consider that the temperature only increased with 1 °C (20°C to 21°C) (within the error margin of what has been measured?), you end up with a displacement of 0.051mm for copper.
The problem now is to calculate the forces this generates in a hanging wire and the rotational momentum it will cause on the torsion balance setup (if any)... not an easy task...
I have no idea what the impact is going to be on those hyper sensitive torsion balances (what was the sensitivity again? 100µN ?)
It might be important, as you're suggesting, or it might not be noticeable, as rfmwguy said...
So yeah, I'm all in favor for that dummy test you're proposing...way easier... 8)
-
Small temperature increase can cause big difference. So before you check that off, better quantify it. For example, measure the force when runing the same amount of current (a few amperes AC in two leads and 500mA DC in another) through the leads without magnetron.
True, a live test is always better....
If we take a wire length of 3 meters (hanging from the ceiling), and consider that the temperature only increased with 1 °C (20°C to 21°C) (within the error margin of what has been measured?), you end up with a displacement of 0.051mm for copper.
The problem now is to calculate the forces this generates in a hanging wire and the rotational momentum it will cause on the torsion balance setup (if any)... not an easy task...
I have no idea what the impact is going to be on those hyper sensitive torsion balances (what was the sensitivity again? 100µN ?)
It might be important, as you're suggesting, or it might not be noticeable, as rfmwguy said...
So yeah, I'm all in favor for that dummy test you're proposing...way easier... 8)
But how can that be problem if you can measure it with runing current just through wires with no connection to Magnetron, just physicly attached. (is it called Dummy load?)
Sorry for bad explanation, I think it is rather simple, in electrical way, to make bypass board on the connections to mag and braided wires with switches, thus ploting wire expansion with dummy load.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/35iwt2p.jpg)
-
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
Am so glad you are still with us. I was quietly worried that you would let go of it too soon. Amateur results keep the possibility alive that we will one day see multiple independent developments of functional emdrive systems. :) ;) :D
-
Ok a couple things. First of all we have a problem in that Monomorphics wedge is showing movement without resonance. This would seem to point to some other phenomena involved. This is not fatal to the experimental campaign as NASA seemingly has data in vacuum using a self contained unit. I will point out that we don't know what's going on and should be both skeptical that it works and skeptical that, if it works, any explanations in the correct one. Put another way, how do we know that all this resonance stuff is needed and that best results aren't simply generated by heating a magnet feeding into an asymmetrical can?
That said I have a couple of thoughts:
Conservation of Energy
The EMDrive burns light.
Total Energy = Heat + Redshift due to photon rocket effect = Total Energy Input.
I think there's no real debate that a photon rocket must redshift the light that it emits to generate thrust.
That implies that, with an EMDrive, energy is split between two different "baskets"
Energy used in the EMDrive effect via Redshift. and
Photons that will eventually go to heat.
The conservation is energy argument would then seem spurious in most situations. Until a 100% conversion efficiency between joules of input power and joules of kinetic energy is reached an EMDrive cannot go over unit.
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
To an observer only looking at input power to out acceleration it might seem like you are getting constant acceleration for constant power. That would ignore the diminishing amount of power going to heat.
I believe Monomorphic had some interesting results from imparting motion (tapping) an EMDrive showing a surprisingly high level of redshift.
How this reacts with the laws of thermodynamics is an interesting question. Entropy is increasing somewhere.
-
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
Am so glad you are still with us. I was quietly worried that you would let go of it too soon. Amateur results keep the possibility alive that we will one day see multiple independent developments of functional emdrive systems. :) ;) :D
Thanks, just the opposite...I threw myself into testing with limited postings. At the end of the day I found it was best to minimize distractions and purely focus on tests. Goodbye moderator duties included. I kept in touch with Mr Li whose critical analysis was invaluable. Only disappointment was realization I could not go beyond about a dozen test runs. Otherwise, it exceeded my expectations. Only a few knew about the successful runs. Since I'm not doing this for fame or ego, I didn't splash it around the media. I am scheduled to do another video podcast in January where I'll have an opportunity to describe what I found and my next steps.
-
I had mentioned before my reluctance to believe that an interaction of a change in mass could instantly communicate to the rest of the universe. I am not sure any of you are implying this, but to me it seems in question as to how exactly this information is being conveyed to the rest of the universe.
... Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though. ...
I had some Woodward effect thoughts:
I was driving along and thinking when it occurred to me that LIGO had recently had its first observation of gravitational waves which should travel at the speed of light. I would really like to know more details how LIGO actually observed this and should look it up some time. This gravitational space time wave would indeed take time to interact with the rest of the universe. The gravity wave could effectively change the mass of something it interacts with, with respect to a non-local observer, as by the PV equations. A medium interacting with the vacuum may appear to change in mass when really that mass is not its own, it is the vacuums mass. Accelerating that object may indeed be accelerating the vacuum by a coupling method. Later, a reduction in mass and opposite acceleration of the medium speaks to me of decoupling with the vacuum and not accelerating it. This way the vacuum is only accelerated in one direction.
Such an interaction to me seems to smack of possibly generating gravitational waves, later to interact with the rest of the universe.
Experiments have been done that generate matter and anti-matter from the vacuum which appears to increase the coupling between light and the vacuum.
I almost want to say it might be possible to make a vacuum plasma rocket that shoots out matter and antimatter (not sure I should call that plasma) not needing any propellant. I am not sure that would be efficient. Pushing on the vacuum repeatedly in a cyclic manner (efficiently transferring energy) might show some promise if its possible.
Also, there must be some coupling with the vacuum and matter in a way that causes the frame dragging effect and one might think the larger the gravitational well the more coupling with the vacuum (mass increase) and increased frame dragging.
-
Electron inertia should be central to consideration of a Machian explanation for thrust from an emdrive. The following paper by Professor E. G. Cullwic details the subject as it stood in 1955.
-
....
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
...
The momentum of 100 W of EM radiation exerts a force of about half a micronewton. So the total momentum is not nearly enough to explain the reported forces as measured by several researchers.
Cheers, Peter
-
....
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
...
The momentum of 100 W of EM radiation exerts a force of about half a micronewton. So the total momentum is not nearly enough to explain the reported forces as measured by several researchers.
Cheers, Peter
The EW paper coming out in December should go a long way to explain the effect, but you are right, simple radiation pressure is not enough. Mike McCullough also has a working theory as do several others such as Warp Tech. No one to my knowledge is trying to explain it with radiation pressure. It is an effect without a suitable theory is how many look at it. Happens in astronomy all the time.
-
....
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
...
The momentum of 100 W of EM radiation exerts a force of about half a micronewton. So the total momentum is not nearly enough to explain the reported forces as measured by several researchers.
Cheers, Peter
then multiply by the square root of Q to get your new F value
j/k sounded good tho
-
....
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
...
The momentum of 100 W of EM radiation exerts a force of about half a micronewton. So the total momentum is not nearly enough to explain the reported forces as measured by several researchers.
Cheers, Peter
The EW paper coming out in December should go a long way to explain the effect, but you are right, simple radiation pressure is not enough. Mike McCullough also has a working theory as do several others such as Warp Tech. No one to my knowledge is trying to explain it with radiation pressure. It is an effect without a suitable theory is how many look at it. Happens in astronomy all the time.
From the posting on here there appears to be very active efforts to come up with a theory.
-
Electron inertia should be central to consideration of a Machian explanation for thrust from an emdrive. The following paper by Professor E. G. Cullwic details the subject as it stood in 1955.
Cullwick was known as a critic of the Special Theory of Relativity (see his "Electromagnetism & Relativity – Longmans; 2nd edition edition (1959)" ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=5324162 )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Geoffrey_Cullwick
(http://www.ualbertacentennial.ca/images/uofadbimages/72-58-0824_det.jpg)
His opinion at the end of the paper's Abstract
suggests the possibility of a unified theory in which there would be no necessity to distinguish between a superconductor and a perfect conductor.
does not seem to have been corroborated, 60 years later:
Superconductors exhibit quantum effects such as the Meissner effect and quantization of magnetic flux. The magnetic flux is expelled during the phase transition to superconductivity (the Meissner effect), and the magnetic field is always zero within the bulk of the superconductor.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/EfektMeisnera.svg/220px-EfektMeisnera.svg.png)
By contrast for perfect conductors, the interior magnetic field must remain fixed but can have a zero or nonzero value.
-
....
If we take a wire length of 3 meters (hanging from the ceiling), and consider that the temperature only increased with 1 °C (20°C to 21°C) (within the error margin of what has been measured?), you end up with a displacement of 0.051mm for copper.
....
One way to get an order of magnitude is to look at the force necessary to compress a piece of copper elastically to compensate for the thermal expansion: i.e. how much force would a piece of copper exert if clamped rigidly while being heated?
The Web says thermal expansion of copper is 16.6*10^-6/K, and its modulus of elasticity is 117*10^9 N/m^2.
For a wire 2mm on a side, a 1 Kelvin rise in temp looks to me like about 8 Newtons force from my hypothetical clamped rod. Not really much to go on since a test rig wire isn't clamped and isn't rigid, but it's a number - probably a very high upper bound on possible forces involved.
Have to agree testing is preferable to calcs.
-
....
For Example:
100 w/s of input power converts to 1 joule of KE and 99 joules of heat.
100 w/s of input power converts to 50 joules of KE and 50 joules of heat.
The last might not actually be possible as the redshift needed to generate 50 joules of KE might be so great that the microwaves are quickly redshifted out of the bandwidth of the frustum and go to heat.
...
The momentum of 100 W of EM radiation exerts a force of about half a micronewton. So the total momentum is not nearly enough to explain the reported forces as measured by several researchers.
Cheers, Peter
The EW paper coming out in December should go a long way to explain the effect, but you are right, simple radiation pressure is not enough. Mike McCullough also has a working theory as do several others such as Warp Tech. No one to my knowledge is trying to explain it with radiation pressure. It is an effect without a suitable theory is how many look at it. Happens in astronomy all the time.
From the posting on here there appears to be very active efforts to come up with a theory.
Yes, think we've moved past off-hand rejections to serious study which could lead to who-knows-what else as a spinoff of the effort to explain EmDrive observations. Seems like a win-win scenario for open minded scientists...a chance to explain something plus a chance to be at the forefront of an emerging technology. Commercially speaking, it doesn't pay any current bills, but there's enough DIY efforts that more people are taking notice lately. December should be a milestone month for the EmDrive and related technologies.
-
Here's a simple thought experiment:
I have a recoilless gun suspended rigidly in a closed free moving cavity. The gun is fired and the bullet hits the cavity wall at one end.
Hypothesis:
Since there is no recoil felt by the cavity all the energy in the bullet's motion is transformed into movement of the box.
-
Here's a simple thought experiment:
I have a recoilless gun suspended rigidly in a closed free moving cavity. The gun is fired and the bullet hits the cavity wall at one end.
Hypothesis:
Since there is no recoil felt by the cavity all the energy in the bullet's motion is transformed into movement of the box.
The cavity feels the recoil when the gun hits the opposite wall.
-
Here's a simple thought experiment:
I have a recoilless gun suspended rigidly in a closed free moving cavity. The gun is fired and the bullet hits the cavity wall at one end.
Hypothesis:
Since there is no recoil felt by the cavity all the energy in the bullet's motion is transformed into movement of the box.
A recoilless gun is a way of allowing the gun itself to remain relatively fixed in space while some gas is ejected out the back to counter the kick of the bullet. If you account for the gas all the momentum will cancel. So, no net motion beyond adjusting the center of mass a bit. Nice try though. :)
-
Ok a couple things. First of all we have a problem in that Monomorphics wedge is showing movement without resonance. This would seem to point to some other phenomena involved. This is not fatal to the experimental campaign as NASA seemingly has data in vacuum using a self contained unit. I will point out that we don't know what's going on and should be both skeptical that it works and skeptical that, if it works, any explanations in the correct one. Put another way, how do we know that all this resonance stuff is needed and that best results aren't simply generated by heating a magnet feeding into an asymmetrical can?
I highlighted that part of your sentence because that is what I have often wondered about. If I understand it, one needs resonance to both build up energy density and to prevent interference or canceling of the waves. I wonder though if the same objectives could be achieved by circulating the waves in asymmetric waveguides in such a way that they don't interfere with themselves. In place of the role of The Q factor, each wave circulates a large number of times. In that case, you get the asymmetric boost for each circulation but you don't need to worry about keeping the resonance. It's always in 'resonance' by design like a particle accelerator. Even when accelerating. In my concept, the device is more like a bundle of thousands of fibers, each with an asymmetric design in one direction of travel but not the return path. One might have miles of length and millimeters of width bundled into a compact device. You never need to keep resonance, just keep waves from interfering by pulsing or some other means. It could be thousands if individual fiber loops or one fiber folded many thousands of times for one path. Any thoughts?
-
We should remind readers that there is a member of NSF with experience in General Relativity that posted not just a theory but a formula that predicts experimental results:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
and he did so years ago, before many of the people conducting experiments were posting at NSF. His formula takes into account the electromagnetic mode shapes (unlike other often quoted theories that do not explicitly take into account the mode shapes).
-
Thanks. I'm also not going to claim I'm some true rocket expert. Also, I don't think I'm saying the Oberth effect of the rocket justifies the MET or EmDrive per se. But it helps me envision it. Still, I don't quite understand why my treatment of your example was wrong to you. I don't get why you wrote that Woodward would just add the first increment of kinetic energy ten times. I never got that from his paper at all.
Thanks again.
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
This is my understanding of the discussion between us.
Thanks. I don't easily understand your argument so let me ponder your words a bit before I respond.
-
We should remind readers that there is a member of NSF with experience in General Relativity that posted not just a theory but a formula that predicts experimental results:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
and he did so years ago, before many of the people conducting experiments were posting at NSF. His formula takes into account the electromagnetic mode shapes (unlike other often quoted theories that do not explicitly take into account the mode shapes).
I get the impression again that this hypothesis works by modifying the mass of the photon by modifying its frequency or wavelength.
(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?W%20%3D%20T%20%3D%20%5Ccfrac%7Bh%7D%7BL%7D%5CDelta%20f)
Sort of the concept that a motor can also be a generator. If gravity can change the properties of light then modifying these properties of light may also induce gravitational effects.
-
...Put another way, how do we know that all this resonance stuff is needed and that best results aren't simply generated by heating a magnet feeding into an asymmetrical can?...
Another EmDrive builder and myself measured the thrust curve versus freq and found it was narrower than the rtn loss curve. When we shared this data with Roger, he explained why the thrust curve was much narrower than the rtn loss curve as both Qu and forward power drop as you excite off freq.
Force = ( 1 Qu Pwr Df) / c
We also confirmed each others data that the peak thrust occurred slightly off the peak rtn loss freq, which we believe was caused by the peak rtn loss freq having a slight internal phase distortion that exciting slightly off freq pushed in the other way.
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188427;image)
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
the builders definitely need to be seeing this kind of resonance in IR before they even begin taking any measurements on a balance. also why do the magnetrons burn out so quickly? in an oven the magnetron lasts ages
-
...also why do the magnetrons burn out so quickly? in an oven the magnetron lasts ages...
Several reasons I can think of:
1) Oven cavity VSWR, reflected power back into the maggie, is limited to that which the maggie is designed to handle.
2) Oven maggie has fan forced cooling to limit max maggie temperature.
3) Oven cavity has very low Q and as a result there is little maggie freq pulling. Freq pulling (maggie raw freq pulled to the high Q cavity bandwidth freq) increases VSWR and maggie heating.
Solution is single freq excitation, freq adjustment to lowest reflected power and output power attenuation to allow freq adjustment at low power and then pulse to the desired higher power.
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188427;image)
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
the builders definitely need to be seeing this kind of resonance in IR before they even begin taking any measurements on a balance. also why do the magnetrons burn out so quickly? in an oven the magnetron lasts ages
Why magnetrons burn out in EmDrive testing vs oven.
1. The EmDrive cavity is much smaller leading to higher temperatures transferring to the magnetron base.
2. A tighter RF coupling meaning the EmDrive cavity is a narrower bandpass resonance and there are higher reflection coeffecients leading to higher heating of the magnetron as it drifts in frequency.
3. An oven has a fan pushing air constantly over the yoke of the magnetron, leading to far better cooling. A fan is not used in EmDrive tests because the of mechanical errors that would be introduced on precision displacement measurements.
4. An oven's cooking cavity is also air vented leading to cooler operation of the magnetron.
Its all about higher yoke temps on the magnetron during EmDrive testing into a much narrower and smaller resonance cavity. Basic RF design principles.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding IR. If you want to see (imperfect) TM013 mode forming you can watch my video:
https://youtu.be/27LA98ahuYQ
The discussion of this with monomorphic and Mr Li was here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4sv7ni/1701a_emdrive_thermal_test_2_with_new_magnetron/
Note there is slight misalignment of endplates leading to imperfect mode forming on the small diameter. This is a critical discovery, meaning 18.4mN displacement was achieved by a less than perfect alignment and more is available.
Despite speculations by non-EmDrive builders, there is no single mode that has proven to be the only one which could yield displacement.
-
Despite speculations by non-EmDrive builders, there is no single mode that has proven to be the only one which could yield displacement.
Correct.
My understanding is the mode alters the surface resistance losses in the cavity and thus Qu varies as the mode varies. There are paper online that describe the effect.
Also the mode alters where the eddy currents flow. It is desired to avoid eddy currents that flow from the side walls onto the end plates, well across any physical joint, as that requires a electrically conductive surface across the joint at 5x skin depth or there may be arching at higher power.
TE01x modes form eddy currents that are circular around the centre of the end plate and never flow onto the side walls. Thus for end plates that have a mechanical joint and can be removed, TE01x modes are highly desirable.
Example of eddy currents crossing and not crossing into the side walls from the end plate are attached
-
...Example of eddy currents crossing and not crossing into the side walls from the end plate are attached
Are you now running FEKO Boundary Element simulations of the mode shapes, or is somebody else (Monomorphic ?) to be credited for those nice computer runs you posted?
Thanks
-
To those who seek to learn how to build an EmDrive
1st warning. Microwave Radiation can be health threatening and possibly LETHAL.
2nd warning. Magnetron power supplies ARE LETHAL.
3rd warning: If you are not experienced in dealing with high power microwave systems and their power supplies,
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BUILD AN EMDRIVE.
Info sources from NSF are the following builders. Both their posts and attachments are available.
StarDrive (Paul March):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2074
RfMwGuy:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=47785
Monomorphic:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=49802
Seeshells:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=48229
TheTraveller:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=47641
EmDrive Wiki:
http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page
RfMwGuy YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videos
Monomorphic YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/monomorph1/videos
TheTraveller EmDrive Research forum and archive:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B7kgKijo-p0ifk9EakZfbW9aZGMwNWZMQ01xVnBON0tkM2w0Q1NLbmtjRFFwMXBuNVlVN0U
Roger Shawyer's web site:
www.emdrive.com with 2 excellent detailed engineering reports.
EagleWorks 1st EmDrive paper with many force generation results:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iS3hvZzV5Rzl6Rlk
If I have missed any, please let me know so I can update this list.
There are more than enough information in the public space to assist the build of a working EmDrive. I suggest designing for mode TE013, using a variable single freq generator at 2.45GHz, a solid state Rf amp, with monitoring of forward and reflected power and the ability to vary output power over at least a 31dBm range.
Please note that while both Rfmwguy and Monomorphic started with a magnetron, they are both moving to single freq Rf amp builds. This should give prospective EmDrive builders a good pointer as to how to excite their frustums.
Also note Dave's 18.4mN of force was achieved with a very highly polished and solid Copper frustum, so as to obtain max Q and max force generation. This result should also guide prospective EmDrive builders about how to build their frustums.
====================
4th warning. Microwave Radiation can be health threatening and possibly LETHAL.
5th warning. Magnetron power supplies ARE LETHAL.
6th warning: If you are not experienced in dealing with high power microwave systems and their power supplies,
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BUILD AN EMDRIVE.
-
...Example of eddy currents crossing and not crossing into the side walls from the end plate are attached
Are you now running FEKO Boundary Element simulations of the mode shapes, or is somebody else (Monomorphic ?) to be credited for those nice computer runs you posted?
Thanks
Have a LOT of images in my archive. Don't remember where each came from. They may be from Monomorphic or from others who have done similar work.
Should add that Monomorphic did the FEKO analysis of my TE013 spherical end plate frustum design and the antenna / coupler placement. Attached is an early run.
-
Despite speculations by non-EmDrive builders, there is no single mode that has proven to be the only one which could yield displacement.
Correct.
My understanding is the mode alters the surface resistance losses in the cavity and thus Qu varies as the mode varies. There are paper online that describe the effect.
Also the mode alters where the eddy currents flow. It is desired to avoid eddy currents that flow from the side walls onto the end plates, well across any physical joint, as that requires a electrically conductive surface across the joint at 5x skin depth or there may be arching at higher power.
TE01x modes form eddy currents that are circular around the centre of the end plate and never flow onto the side walls. Thus for end plates that have a mechanical joint and can be removed, TE01x modes are highly desirable.
Example of eddy currents crossing and not crossing into the side walls from the end plate are attached
What is the relative current density (A/m^2) in these simulations?
-
A while ago someone posted that E=cP was mandated by special relativity for any massless particle moving at c.
Since that would mean ditching special relativity in order for the EMdrive to have a massless exhaust plume with P>(E/c), I thought I'd check.
The actual requirement of the Lorentz transformation is that E=±cP, not that E=cP.
Probably a nit, but nice to know there is a tiny crack there. Here's the algebra. For a Lorentz transformation of energy-momentum to a primed frame moving at velocity v:
p’=γ(p-vE/c²) and E’=γ(E-pv)
If we require E=λp for some constant λ, we must also have E’=λp’, or we could tell the frames apart. So:
λ=(E’/p’) = (λp-pv)/(p-vλp/c²)=(λ-v)/(1-λv/c²) ⇒λ-λ²v/c²=λ-v ⇒λ²v/c²=v ⇒λ=±c
If this has any bearing at all, it would be that an 'exhaust' might consist of pairs of particles with the same momentum and opposite energy, and so the ratio of momentum to energy could be arbitrarily high.
(edit to correct 2nd Para)
-
A while ago someone posted that E=cP was mandated by special relativity for any massless particle moving at c.
Since that would mean ditching special relativity in order for the EMdrive to have a massless exhaust plume with P>(E/c), I thought I'd check.
The actual requirement of the Lorentz transformation is that E=±cP, not that E=cP.
Probably a nit, but nice to know there is a tiny crack there. Here's the algebra. For a Lorentz transformation of energy-momentum to a primed frame moving at velocity v:
p’=γ(p-vE/c²) and E’=γ(E-pv)
If we require E=λp for some constant λ, we must also have E’=λp’, or we could tell the frames apart. So:
λ=(E’/p’) = (λp-pv)/(p-vλp/c²)=(λ-v)/(1-λv/c²) ⇒λ-λ²v/c²=λ-v ⇒λ²v/c²=v ⇒λ=±c
If this has any bearing at all, it would be that an 'exhaust' might consist of pairs of particles with the same momentum and opposite energy, and so the ratio of momentum to energy could be arbitrarily high.
(edit to correct 2nd Para)
The Finnish group suggests that paired photons where the fields cancel but not the momentum are involved.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'opposite' energy.
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
There it is. I increase the mesh density for this sims.
Port impedance: 50 Ohm
The impedance without the insert had a high degree of asymmetry. Capacitive at about 1 Ohm and Resistive at about 500 Ohms. Here with the insert, there is high resistance in both directions and less asymmetry.
Thanks X-RaY!
From the viewpoint of the em-field, there is more space to propagate when the dielectric is present, more similar to the big end without a dielectric (effective diameter = small diameter*sqrt(eps_r)).
I am waiting for feko to complete a 2 port sim to get S21 and S12 data too. :)
This will take a couple of hours ::)
-
Here's a simple thought experiment:
I have a recoilless gun suspended rigidly in a closed free moving cavity. The gun is fired and the bullet hits the cavity wall at one end.
Hypothesis:
Since there is no recoil felt by the cavity all the energy in the bullet's motion is transformed into movement of the box.
A recoilless gun is a way of allowing the gun itself to remain relatively fixed in space while some gas is ejected out the back to counter the kick of the bullet. If you account for the gas all the momentum will cancel. So, no net motion beyond adjusting the center of mass a bit. Nice try though. :)
In this simple thought experiment the gun is actually recoilless, so it's meant as more of a tautology aimed at bringing other closed cavity experiments into focus. For example in the emdrive the shape of the cavity combined with the standing waves of varying group velocities and increased Q may dislocate the recoil of the originating waves from the system thereby creating the necessary phantom forces; unlike effects in fluid mechanics. in gun manufacture engineers seek to reduce the effect of recoil by using various designs to redirect gas flow and by engaging moving counterbalances, increasing mass, and so on.
-
For future calculations I will need some defined data:
- frustum: shape/ dimensions, material
- possible dielectric: shape/ dimensions, dielectric constants
- frequency or frequency band (start-stop)
- source: type, position and direction, for wg-port mode shape and impedance
- input power
- defined requests about measurements, for example: magnitude current at plate X for a defined frequency Y
- maybe some more informations, I will ask for if needed
I doesn't make sense to ask for results without define some input data.
Thanks :)
-
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
That's what they say. They don't say one can't have a constant force acting as long as you want. That's basic mechanics. They worry about how much energy it takes to generate that force. I've never seen that worry expressed in any text on classical mechanics.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
Yes. He says you can define the proper interval up to the point where the energies are equal.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
I think you are missing something here. Woodward is merely stating that in each interval, the total input energy must equal the kinetic energy as seen from a frame where the acceleration started from rest. He's basically saying one can always find such an interval for a given energy input and force. He's saying that's all that matters and his critics are simply wrong about CoE. Of course when you add up the effect of the frames the overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force. It doesn't typically come up since problems usually involve an outside constant force applied in the observer frame and not a force generated in and by the accelerating ship.
The critics have to show how the ship frame knows what it's velocity is and what mechanism is invoked by nature to reduce the force and thus acceleration to comply with the critics view of CoE. If that's been done please point me to it. I don't think it has. At least you are consistent in you belief that because of CoE, the device would not work at all in any frame under any circumstance. But then your problem is to justify why won't work at least as well as radiation pressure.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
There might be some confusion because of the example you gave of the cannon. In that example, the whole problem was already assumed to be within the bounds of Woodward's condition. In other words, the total input energy does equal the total kinetic energy. Breaking up that problem into steps is not necessary but I did it only to illustrate that it can be done. Yet you seemed to object how I did that which had nothing to do with MET's or EmDrives but just simply mechanics. Each frame is faster than the previous and when you take that into account it all ads up. Woodward says when the input energy is less than the kinetic energy, consider an interval where they are equal. It's just a way of looking at the problem.
In general, equating energy input in the ships frame with kinetic energy in the observers frame is confusing frames in my view.
-
Here's a simple thought experiment:
I have a recoilless gun suspended rigidly in a closed free moving cavity. The gun is fired and the bullet hits the cavity wall at one end.
Hypothesis:
Since there is no recoil felt by the cavity all the energy in the bullet's motion is transformed into movement of the box.
A recoilless gun is a way of allowing the gun itself to remain relatively fixed in space while some gas is ejected out the back to counter the kick of the bullet. If you account for the gas all the momentum will cancel. So, no net motion beyond adjusting the center of mass a bit. Nice try though. :)
In this simple thought experiment the gun is actually recoilless, so it's meant as more of a tautology aimed at bringing other closed cavity experiments into focus. For example in the emdrive the shape of the cavity combined with the standing waves of varying group velocities and increased Q may dislocate the recoil of the originating waves from the system thereby creating the necessary phantom forces; unlike effects in fluid mechanics. in gun manufacture engineers seek to reduce the effect of recoil by using various designs to redirect gas flow and by engaging moving counterbalances, increasing mass, and so on.
If the gun was actually, literally recoilless (impossible of course) then it would work since you assume you are generating new momentum from the bullet which transmits it to the cavity. In fact if you let the bullet out one end it would not work. But even the adherents of EmDrives or MET devices believe momentum is conserved but debate as to how.
-
Bob012345, I think you are are missing some important details about what is being said about CoE and why Woodward's paper is very wrong. First from a previous post, you asked:
...
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
You said you are a physics major, but you clearly have forgotten some of the basic physics relevant to this discussion. P = F*v is literally one form of the definition of power in classical mechanics, so yes, that is true as long as you include all relevant energy.
(Note: I have an engineering degree, which came with a physics heavy curriculum)
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
That's what they say. They don't say one can't have a constant force acting as long as you want. That's basic mechanics. They worry about how much energy it takes to generate that force. I've never seen that worry expressed in any text on classical mechanics.
There is no problem with constant force, there is a problem with trying to claim that the power required to generate that force is constant. Every text on classical mechanics shows as I stated above, the power to apply constant force is P=F*v. After this it is trivially obvious that the power required to apply a constant force must increase with time.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
Yes. He says you can define the proper interval up to the point where the energies are equal.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
I think you are missing something here. Woodward is merely stating that in each interval, the total input energy must equal the kinetic energy as seen from a frame where the acceleration started from rest. He's basically saying one can always find such an interval for a given energy input and force. He's saying that's all that matters and his critics are simply wrong about CoE. Of course when you add up the effect of the frames the overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force. It doesn't typically come up since problems usually involve an outside constant force applied in the observer frame and not a force generated in and by the accelerating ship.
(emphasis mine)
No, he is the one that is wrong about CoE, and very blatantly.
First, he is adding energy across reference frames, which doesn't make sense as you have pointed out before, but you seem to think it is fine when Woodward does it.
Second, finding a single interval where things ad up doesn't change the fact that physics still has to work in between.
Third, "overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force." is wrong on 2 counts:
-the overally kinetic energy grows quadratically, not exponentially, I assume this is a typo.
-energy input doesn't grow linearly in classical mechanics. There is no such thing as a constant force/power ratio by definition in classical mechanics. The introduction of a device that does directly contradicts classical mechanics.
The critics have to show how the ship frame knows what it's velocity is and what mechanism is invoked by nature to reduce the force and thus acceleration to comply with the critics view of CoE. If that's been done please point me to it. I don't think it has. At least you are consistent in you belief that because of CoE, the device would not work at all in any frame under any circumstance. But then your problem is to justify why won't work at least as well as radiation pressure.
You keep asking for the critics to explain the mechanism by which the device could work when the whole point is that a device cannot work as described, or it is a source of free energy. It is up to the person claiming the device works to propose a way that it could obey conservation of energy.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
There might be some confusion because of the example you gave of the cannon. In that example, the whole problem was already assumed to be within the bounds of Woodward's condition. In other words, the total input energy does equal the total kinetic energy. Breaking up that problem into steps is not necessary but I did it only to illustrate that it can be done. Yet you seemed to object how I did that which had nothing to do with MET's or EmDrives but just simply mechanics. Each frame is faster than the previous and when you take that into account it all ads up. Woodward says when the input energy is less than the kinetic energy, consider an interval where they are equal. It's just a way of looking at the problem.
In general, equating energy input in the ships frame with kinetic energy in the observers frame is confusing frames in my view.
How many times do I have to explain that it is the energy stored in the observer frame in the battery, so it is not confusing frames?
What Woodward does changing references frames every time that energy goes overunity in the last part of his paper is badly confusing frames. Also, just to be sure, energy conservation is broken completely, not just after a certain amount of time. Energy disappearing into nothing is also a problem, and that is what happens as soon as you turn the device on, unless it can be explained where that energy goes (and you can't just say losses, you have to be specific)
And one final time, since this is the point you seem to be missing in this last post: Constant force is not a problem at all in classical mechanics. Constant power providing a constant force is where things break. Woodward's entire paper is trying to show that a device can generate constant force using constant power, but this is simply and completely inconsistent with classical mechanics. (Special relativity tweaks the definition of energy, which in turn tweaks the definition of power, so a constant force/power ratio becomes allowed, but it is strictly limited to a ratio of 1/c, or lower with inefficiencies.)
-
There's been a lot of discussion about conservation of energy and constant acceleration. I was surprised when I looked it up that the fully relativistic treatment is quite tractable. So here it is, for the record.
Suppose a particle experiences a constant acceleration α in its rest frame. Then its position x, velocity v and acceleration a in the frame in which it is initially at rest are:
x=(c²/α)(γ-1) , v=αt/γ , a=α/γ³ , and as a result γ=√(1+α²t²/c²)
Now suppose that the constant proper acceleration is driven by a constant force in the rest frame, and that the force is proportional to the power drain on some battery in the particle:
Nτ=m0α Nτ=λWτ where the subscript Tau indicates quantities in the rest frame.
Now it remains to me peculiar that the mechanical power in the rest frame of the particle is always zero, and so it would seem that energy is always conserved in that frame. I guess that is the heart of the recent discussion here. But we can calculate what happens in the initial rest frame of the particle. Using subscript 't' for that frame we must have
Nt=λWt or the frames are distinguishable. So now we can calculate the mechanical power in the initial frame:
Pt=Ntv=λWtv
But for CoE we require Pt ≤ Wt, i.e. λWtv ≤ Wt, which requires λv≤ 1, or λ ≤ 1/v, and so to be correct in all frames it must be that λ ≤ 1/c
(I said I'd probably made at least one mistake, and I've now found and corrected it above. The problem was that there is an inconsistency between
Nt=Nτ/γ² , Wt=Wτ/γ (since dt/dτ=γ), and Nτ=λWτ
which means that one or both of the two transformations is incorrect - why isn't obvious to me.)
-
For future calculations I will need some defined data:
- frustum: shape/ dimensions, material
- possible dielectric: shape/ dimensions, dielectric constants
- frequency or frequency band (start-stop)
- source: type, position and direction, for wg-port mode shape and impedance
- input power
- defined requests about measurements, for example: magnitude current at plate X for a defined frequency Y
- maybe some more informations, I will ask for if needed
I doesn't make sense to ask for results without define some input data.
Thanks :)
This will be more difficult to obtain as time progresses and general acceptance grows. Believe it is best to research this for yourself here and elsewhere for prior information disclosed by builders (I removed my info from EmDrive.wiki however). Little is being disclosed now...for better or for worse, that's the way seems to be headed.
-
For future calculations I will need some defined data:
- frustum: shape/ dimensions, material
- possible dielectric: shape/ dimensions, dielectric constants
- frequency or frequency band (start-stop)
- source: type, position and direction, for wg-port mode shape and impedance
- input power
- defined requests about measurements, for example: magnitude current at plate X for a defined frequency Y
- maybe some more informations, I will ask for if needed
I doesn't make sense to ask for results without define some input data.
Thanks :)
From my own thrust equation derivation, I find that the length of the cavity has the most significant effect on the thrust. Given the same end plate dimensions, how short can you make the length and still achieve a resonance at the desired frequency? A frustum shaped more like a flying saucer (wide and flat) should produce about an order of magnitude more thrust than anything tried so far. I'll get back to you when I've worked out the dimensions and parameters to model for this.
For those worried about CoM, you can forget all about the momentum of the EM fields inside the frustum. They cancel out as required by Maxwell's equations. However, what has not been considered is the power dissipation. If we have a perfect conducting cavity or superconductor with no heat losses, the Q will be enormous. The energy put into the cavity will be sustained indefinitely. As long as the cavity is sealed, the energy stored can't decay to a lower energy state. In that sense, the cavity is in a "ground state".
However, if we have a normal copper shell cavity, the energy put into the cavity will be stored temporarily, even if the cavity is sealed. Eventually, the energy inside decays to a lower energy state and eventually all the energy is lost as heat in the copper. In this case, the energy in the frustum has a "gravitational potential energy" just like an object suspended above the Earth. As the energy inside the frustum decays, the rate of decay is asymmetrical. The big end dissipates more power and absorbs more losses than the small end. So the energy inside seems to flow toward the big end. This creates a gradient in the field, just like gravity. As the energy inside is attracted to the big end where it is lost by heating the copper, the frustum accelerates the other way to balance the gradient, just like gravity. So if you want to consider CoM, you must consider how it works in a gravitational field, and not simply Maxwell's equations and photons.
-
Bob012345, I think you are are missing some important details about what is being said about CoE and why Woodward's paper is very wrong. First from a previous post, you asked:
...
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
You said you are a physics major, but you clearly have forgotten some of the basic physics relevant to this discussion. P = F*v is literally one form of the definition of power in classical mechanics, so yes, that is true as long as you include all relevant energy.
(Note: I have an engineering degree, which came with a physics heavy curriculum)
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
That's what they say. They don't say one can't have a constant force acting as long as you want. That's basic mechanics. They worry about how much energy it takes to generate that force. I've never seen that worry expressed in any text on classical mechanics.
There is no problem with constant force, there is a problem with trying to claim that the power required to generate that force is constant. Every text on classical mechanics shows as I stated above, the power to apply constant force is P=F*v. After this it is trivially obvious that the power required to apply a constant force must increase with time.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
Yes. He says you can define the proper interval up to the point where the energies are equal.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
I think you are missing something here. Woodward is merely stating that in each interval, the total input energy must equal the kinetic energy as seen from a frame where the acceleration started from rest. He's basically saying one can always find such an interval for a given energy input and force. He's saying that's all that matters and his critics are simply wrong about CoE. Of course when you add up the effect of the frames the overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force. It doesn't typically come up since problems usually involve an outside constant force applied in the observer frame and not a force generated in and by the accelerating ship.
(emphasis mine)
No, he is the one that is wrong about CoE, and very blatantly.
First, he is adding energy across reference frames, which doesn't make sense as you have pointed out before, but you seem to think it is fine when Woodward does it.
Second, finding a single interval where things ad up doesn't change the fact that physics still has to work in between.
Third, "overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force." is wrong on 2 counts:
-the overally kinetic energy grows quadratically, not exponentially, I assume this is a typo.
-energy input doesn't grow linearly in classical mechanics. There is no such thing as a constant force/power ratio by definition in classical mechanics. The introduction of a device that does directly contradicts classical mechanics.
The critics have to show how the ship frame knows what it's velocity is and what mechanism is invoked by nature to reduce the force and thus acceleration to comply with the critics view of CoE. If that's been done please point me to it. I don't think it has. At least you are consistent in you belief that because of CoE, the device would not work at all in any frame under any circumstance. But then your problem is to justify why won't work at least as well as radiation pressure.
You keep asking for the critics to explain the mechanism by which the device could work when the whole point is that a device cannot work as described, or it is a source of free energy. It is up to the person claiming the device works to propose a way that it could obey conservation of energy.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
There might be some confusion because of the example you gave of the cannon. In that example, the whole problem was already assumed to be within the bounds of Woodward's condition. In other words, the total input energy does equal the total kinetic energy. Breaking up that problem into steps is not necessary but I did it only to illustrate that it can be done. Yet you seemed to object how I did that which had nothing to do with MET's or EmDrives but just simply mechanics. Each frame is faster than the previous and when you take that into account it all ads up. Woodward says when the input energy is less than the kinetic energy, consider an interval where they are equal. It's just a way of looking at the problem.
In general, equating energy input in the ships frame with kinetic energy in the observers frame is confusing frames in my view.
How many times do I have to explain that it is the energy stored in the observer frame in the battery, so it is not confusing frames?
What Woodward does changing references frames every time that energy goes overunity in the last part of his paper is badly confusing frames. Also, just to be sure, energy conservation is broken completely, not just after a certain amount of time. Energy disappearing into nothing is also a problem, and that is what happens as soon as you turn the device on, unless it can be explained where that energy goes (and you can't just say losses, you have to be specific)
And one final time, since this is the point you seem to be missing in this last post: Constant force is not a problem at all in classical mechanics. Constant power providing a constant force is where things break. Woodward's entire paper is trying to show that a device can generate constant force using constant power, but this is simply and completely inconsistent with classical mechanics. (Special relativity tweaks the definition of energy, which in turn tweaks the definition of power, so a constant force/power ratio becomes allowed, but it is strictly limited to a ratio of 1/c, or lower with inefficiencies.)
I'll give a more detailed response later but for now, I suspect that not everyone here agrees with you and Tellmeagain esp. About prof. Woodward whom you two seem to think a complete fool. I strongly suspect that those here building devices actually think they will ultimately work and will work with a constant input power.
It would be nice to hear from you all who respect and admire prof. Woodward and know he has been thinking through these issues for nearly three decades. Thanks.
-
Yes, it is 110VAC to the power supply which does the -4kV conversion. I am convinced I saw something real, but I do have to appreciate the high level of doubt there is about something so dramatic. This is the reason I did not publish a test report, was unable to complete the # of tests I wanted to. It did seem to me that there was no thermal change within 4 inches of the frustum, and therefore no expansion of the leads.
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
If I understand correctly, your Magnetron failed before you could do the test with polymer insert ? Am I correct ? As it was told earlier, the polymer insert can help to see the reality of the thrust, since most undesired effects should be the same with, and without the insert. Heat, Lorentz Forces...
Solid State and Batteries is a great thing to do, but IMHO, the dimensions of the frustrum have to be more precise with solid state :)
-
....From my own thrust equation derivation, I find that the length of the cavity has the most significant effect on the thrust. Given the same end plate dimensions, how short can you make the length and still achieve a resonance at the desired frequency? A frustum shaped more like a flying saucer (wide and flat) should produce about an order of magnitude more thrust than anything tried so far. I'll get back to you when I've worked out the dimensions and parameters to model for this...
Do you mean shaped more like the Cannae device, but asymmetric, one side flat with a larger OD and the other side having a smaller diameter?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iuIRlN0RoQk/U93848CqEQI/AAAAAAAAzl8/YDUkix1Omos/cannae_drive.jpg)
-
I'll give a more detailed response later but for now, I suspect that not everyone here agrees with you and Tellmeagain esp. About prof. Woodward whom you two seem to think a complete fool. I strongly suspect that those here building devices actually think they will ultimately work and will work with a constant input power.
It would be nice to hear from you all who respect and admire prof. Woodward and know he has been thinking through these issues for nearly three decades. Thanks.
My impression about Woodward from what people here had been saying was fairly positive before I read that paper. I have not read anything else from him, and maybe everything else he has written is reasonable, but that paper is full of numerous, basic mistakes. The paper as a whole is completely, indefensibly wrong.
-
....From my own thrust equation derivation, I find that the length of the cavity has the most significant effect on the thrust. Given the same end plate dimensions, how short can you make the length and still achieve a resonance at the desired frequency? A frustum shaped more like a flying saucer (wide and flat) should produce about an order of magnitude more thrust than anything tried so far. I'll get back to you when I've worked out the dimensions and parameters to model for this...
Do you mean shaped more like the Cannae device, but asymmetric, one side flat with a larger OD and the other side having a smaller diameter?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iuIRlN0RoQk/U93848CqEQI/AAAAAAAAzl8/YDUkix1Omos/cannae_drive.jpg)
Yes, exactly, like a tapered pill-box. I'm using MathCAD now to optimize the cavity dimensions. I'll let you know what I come up with. I also think that driving it from the small end to prevent VSWR from feeding back to the amplifier, is the best location. Like Cannae has it because the small end is more reflective and therefore, less power will couple back to the antenna or Magnetron. The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic.
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
-
I'll give a more detailed response later but for now, I suspect that not everyone here agrees with you and Tellmeagain esp. About prof. Woodward whom you two seem to think a complete fool. I strongly suspect that those here building devices actually think they will ultimately work and will work with a constant input power.
It would be nice to hear from you all who respect and admire prof. Woodward and know he has been thinking through these issues for nearly three decades. Thanks.
My impression about Woodward from what people here had been saying was fairly positive before I read that paper. I have not read anything else from him, and maybe everything else he has written is reasonable, but that paper is full of numerous, basic mistakes. The paper as a whole is completely, indefensibly wrong.
You should read the papers by Dr. Heidi Fern. They are on Researchgate. The derivations are not too difficult to follow and are rock solid physics.
-
For future calculations I will need some defined data:
- frustum: shape/ dimensions, material
- possible dielectric: shape/ dimensions, dielectric constants
- frequency or frequency band (start-stop)
- source: type, position and direction, for wg-port mode shape and impedance
- input power
- defined requests about measurements, for example: magnitude current at plate X for a defined frequency Y
- maybe some more informations, I will ask for if needed
I doesn't make sense to ask for results without define some input data.
Thanks :)
From my own thrust equation derivation, I find that the length of the cavity has the most significant effect on the thrust. Given the same end plate dimensions, how short can you make the length and still achieve a resonance at the desired frequency? A frustum shaped more like a flying saucer (wide and flat) should produce about an order of magnitude more thrust than anything tried so far. I'll get back to you when I've worked out the dimensions and parameters to model for this.
For those worried about CoM, you can forget all about the momentum of the EM fields inside the frustum. They cancel out as required by Maxwell's equations. However, what has not been considered is the power dissipation. If we have a perfect conducting cavity or superconductor with no heat losses, the Q will be enormous. The energy put into the cavity will be sustained indefinitely. As long as the cavity is sealed, the energy stored can't decay to a lower energy state. In that sense, the cavity is in a "ground state".
However, if we have a normal copper shell cavity, the energy put into the cavity will be stored temporarily, even if the cavity is sealed. Eventually, the energy inside decays to a lower energy state and eventually all the energy is lost as heat in the copper. In this case, the energy in the frustum has a "gravitational potential energy" just like an object suspended above the Earth. As the energy inside the frustum decays, the rate of decay is asymmetrical. The big end dissipates more power and absorbs more losses than the small end. So the energy inside seems to flow toward the big end. This creates a gradient in the field, just like gravity. As the energy inside is attracted to the big end where it is lost by heating the copper, the frustum accelerates the other way to balance the gradient, just like gravity. So if you want to consider CoM, you must consider how it works in a gravitational field, and not simply Maxwell's equations and photons.
I remember also wondering if thermal gradients could be a form of propulsion. Here is where I was wondering if this might be the case. I would think it might have an effect on the light generated by the currents also.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1553736#msg1553736
on: 06/24/2016 05:17 PM ... On another note, I was thinking about what would happen if we had the frustum back half as a more resistant material like aluminum and then the front half as copper. Or maybe the back half as silver and the front half as superconducting. The idea being to keep a decent Q or reflective nature of the cavity but have an imbalance in the resistance to current.
wikipedia.org
Superconductor should be near zero
Copper Electrical resistivity 16.78 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)
Aluminum Electrical resistivity 28.2 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)
Silver Electrical resistivity 15.87 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)
Wouldn't this lead to a heat imbalance between the front and back half? If current is more free to accelerate with out resistance does this mean there is more of a push from the light than materials with greater resistance, or does the skin depth of penetration for the light in the material cancel out any difference in push in the long run?
The idea being some difference in push exists * Q. If Q is 10,000 then (delta_push)*10,000/2.
I remember you mentioning something similar just recently and it struck a cord with me.
Another thought I was wondering about was energy loss. If we measured power in and used a thermal bath to measure a change in temperature of water then would the power put in match the rise in temperature of the water or would there be some missing energy that seemed to be escaping. I get the impression that you would expect there to be no difference in energy put in and the energy in the thermal bath.
-
... The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic...
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
That makes sense. The lowest fundamental frequencies should have the highest amplitudes.
Higher mode shapes like TE013 instead of TE011 have been emphasized by some following Shawyer. One justification for that is that (if one does not have other means to provide an asymmetry, like electrostrictive inserts or ferromagnetic ends) TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
-
... The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic...
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
That makes sense. The lowest fundamental frequencies should have the highest amplitudes.
Higher mode shapes like TE013 instead of TE011 have been emphasized by some following Shawyer. One justification for that is that (if one does not have other means to provide an asymmetry, like electrostrictive inserts or ferromagnetic ends) TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
Exactly. Energy density at the small end will persist longer than energy density at the big end, due to higher dissipation at the big end. The flow of energy due to dissipation will be from small end to big end "as if" it were attracted by gravity toward the big end. Likewise, the frustum moves the other way to balance the gravitational effect.
-
Just as a side comment if the modifications to our understanding of how gravity works resultant from producing a theory on how this device operates puts to the sword the idea of dark matter/energy then I will be greatly happy.
-
Yes, it is 110VAC to the power supply which does the -4kV conversion. I am convinced I saw something real, but I do have to appreciate the high level of doubt there is about something so dramatic. This is the reason I did not publish a test report, was unable to complete the # of tests I wanted to. It did seem to me that there was no thermal change within 4 inches of the frustum, and therefore no expansion of the leads.
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
If I understand correctly, your Magnetron failed before you could do the test with polymer insert ? Am I correct ? As it was told earlier, the polymer insert can help to see the reality of the thrust, since most undesired effects should be the same with, and without the insert. Heat, Lorentz Forces...
Solid State and Batteries is a great thing to do, but IMHO, the dimensions of the frustrum have to be more precise with solid state :)
Yes, I never used an insert. I had several reservations including possible out-gassing, phase change, lower Q and a lack of solid evidence that an insert was the only way to go. It might help, I just don't know. Tell you one thing, the only reason I'd ever seen for a dielectric insert was to change the dielectric constant of a cavity filter, which yields a smaller size for a given frequency...IOW, a space-saving technique where Q was not an issue. For every material, there is a positive and negative. Inserts just seemed more of a negative. Others look at it differently and that's OK.
-
I'll give a more detailed response later but for now, I suspect that not everyone here agrees with you and Tellmeagain esp. About prof. Woodward whom you two seem to think a complete fool. I strongly suspect that those here building devices actually think they will ultimately work and will work with a constant input power.
It would be nice to hear from you all who respect and admire prof. Woodward and know he has been thinking through these issues for nearly three decades. Thanks.
My impression about Woodward from what people here had been saying was fairly positive before I read that paper. I have not read anything else from him, and maybe everything else he has written is reasonable, but that paper is full of numerous, basic mistakes. The paper as a whole is completely, indefensibly wrong.
To quote my favorite character, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, "That's your opinion". ;D
-
Yes, it is 110VAC to the power supply which does the -4kV conversion. I am convinced I saw something real, but I do have to appreciate the high level of doubt there is about something so dramatic. This is the reason I did not publish a test report, was unable to complete the # of tests I wanted to. It did seem to me that there was no thermal change within 4 inches of the frustum, and therefore no expansion of the leads.
p.s. I guess I was not active posting on NSF during the testing this summer. For the record, I stated I would only continue working with EmDrive if I got near my 100x displacement improvement and became convinced it was an actual effect. I did both and therefore decided to progress to Gen III with solid state & batteries.
If I understand correctly, your Magnetron failed before you could do the test with polymer insert ? Am I correct ? As it was told earlier, the polymer insert can help to see the reality of the thrust, since most undesired effects should be the same with, and without the insert. Heat, Lorentz Forces...
Solid State and Batteries is a great thing to do, but IMHO, the dimensions of the frustrum have to be more precise with solid state :)
Yes, I never used an insert. I had several reservations including possible out-gassing, phase change, lower Q and a lack of solid evidence that an insert was the only way to go. It might help, I just don't know. Tell you one thing, the only reason I'd ever seen for a dielectric insert was to change the dielectric constant of a cavity filter, which yields a smaller size for a given frequency...IOW, a space-saving technique where Q was not an issue. For every material, there is a positive and negative. Inserts just seemed more of a negative. Others look at it differently and that's OK.
Thanks very much for the detailed information :)
In fact, the aim of the insert in my idea was not at all to improve the thrust. If the insert, at the opposive, was reducing the thrust measurements, it would have been a strong argument that the thrust that you measured without the insert was not coming from heating cable, thermal winds or from other artifacts. That was my idea. Using the insert as a control :)
-
@ WarpTech
Todd, you asked for surface current density for the Brady cone without dielectric and using an idealised 100W source.
What I find you can see in the pic below. Mode is TE012 @ 2.1805GHz, I hope the numbers can help you somehow.
Please note, the upper right diagram was generated using
"no power scaling" option in the power settings menu to find the exact resonance frequency. When "total source power (no mismatch)" is applied, the power over frequency plot shows a straight line at 100W, therefore no peak can be find.
Your idea to shorten the length of the frustum sounds interesting. Which mode do you suggest, TE011 or an other?
-
I'll give a more detailed response later but for now, I suspect that not everyone here agrees with you and Tellmeagain esp. About prof. Woodward whom you two seem to think a complete fool. I strongly suspect that those here building devices actually think they will ultimately work and will work with a constant input power.
It would be nice to hear from you all who respect and admire prof. Woodward and know he has been thinking through these issues for nearly three decades. Thanks.
My impression about Woodward from what people here had been saying was fairly positive before I read that paper. I have not read anything else from him, and maybe everything else he has written is reasonable, but that paper is full of numerous, basic mistakes. The paper as a whole is completely, indefensibly wrong.
To quote my favorite character, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, "That's your opinion". ;D
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
-
... The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic...
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
That makes sense. The lowest fundamental frequencies should have the highest amplitudes.
Higher mode shapes like TE013 instead of TE011 have been emphasized by some following Shawyer. One justification for that is that (if one does not have other means to provide an asymmetry, like electrostrictive inserts or ferromagnetic ends) TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
[/color]
This is one reason I'm pursuing TE013.
I've reached the limits in the home lab with vibration and noise and EM interference. I'm starting on a program over the next 6 weeks to set up a new lab. Separate power, EMI shielded and vibration isolated along with some new and better equipment.
Before I can put up this cute little building for the Space Lab I have my work cut out for me.
This attached pic is the area next to the house I'm going to be clearing off to set this lab. I've got to Split and move all the wood, grade and level the ground and pour the concrete. Erect the building, insulate it, wire it, EMI shield and heat it. Then comes the real work, moving in and setting up the test equipment and start to test. I guess you could ask why I'm doing this? Simple, error bars and to get myself from two prancing 135 pound Great Pyrenees and on stable ground.
Oh thank goodness I have a tractor with a loader and can grade. I want this to be done by Thanksgiving by adding some sweat and blisters.
Back to work!
My Best,
Shell
PS: Many more details in the construction and lab isolation I've not included.
-
@ WarpTech
Todd, you asked for surface current density for the Brady cone without dielectric and using an idealised 100W source.
What I find you can see in the pic below. Mode is TE012 @ 2.1805GHz, I hope the numbers can help you somehow.
Your idea to shorten the length of the frustum sounds interesting. Which mode do you suggest, TE011 or an other?
Thank you sir! Much appreciated. I will review it and let you know how it works out. TE011 should have the highest power and lowest frequency, so I would start there.
I've just now run some optimization plots on MathCAD. What I found to Maximize the thrust to power ratio is the following;
1. The ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500. This is the maximum. Smaller than this the thrust drops off very quickly. Larger than this the thrust drops off more slowly and is probably okay if it's not too much larger than this.
2. The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L. Assuming you can find a resonance there.
3. Shoot for the lowest frequency resonance possible. It will have the highest thrust and the performance improves as 1/f, for a constant set of cavity dimensions.
4. The big end needs to have more dissipation than the small end. I would consider adding a mass or fins on the outside of the big end to act as a heatsink, to draw the heat out of the frustum so it doesn't melt, then crank up the power!
5. There must be a compromise between higher Q and higher dissipation. I still need to work out the details on this point, regarding dielectric inserts and other materials that could be used, but I predict that superconductivity and eliminating the power dissipation, should eliminate the thrust as well.
Enjoy,
Todd
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
Woodward's paper looks really bizarre. When he quite correctly arrives at a contradiction (even obviously wrong) with conservation of energy when he assumes constant thrust with constant power, he doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that it's because his theory just doesn't work.
-
... The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic...
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
That makes sense. The lowest fundamental frequencies should have the highest amplitudes.
Higher mode shapes like TE013 instead of TE011 have been emphasized by some following Shawyer. One justification for that is that (if one does not have other means to provide an asymmetry, like electrostrictive inserts or ferromagnetic ends) TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
[/color]
This is one reason I'm pursuing TE013.
I've reached the limits in the home lab with vibration and noise and EM interference. I'm starting on a program over the next 6 weeks to set up a new lab. Separate power, EMI shielded and vibration isolated along with some new and better equipment.
Before I can put up this cute little building for the Space Lab I have my work cut out for me.
This attached pic is the area next to the house I'm going to be clearing off to set this lab. I've got to Split and move all the wood, grade and level the ground and pour the concrete. Erect the building, insulate it, wire it, EMI shield and heat it. Then comes the real work, moving in and setting up the test equipment and start to test. I guess you could ask why I'm doing this? Simple, error bars and to get myself from two prancing 135 pound Great Pyrenees and on stable ground.
Oh thank goodness I have a tractor with a loader and can grade. I want this to be done by Thanksgiving by adding some sweat and blisters.
Back to work!
My Best,
Shell
PS: Many more details in the construction and lab isolation I've not included.
Suggestion: Before you pour the foundation pad, put a #2/0 bare copper ring around the whole pad. Due to frost level, I would put it at least 18" deep, and put ground rods in all 4 corners, then ground that to the rebar in the pad. Leave a copper tail sticking up through the concrete. Then purchase one of those outdoor metal sheds, and set it on the concrete and ground it. Viola! You have a cheap faraday cage. Then put insulation and wiring inside. Steel is not as good as mu-metal, but it's better than nothing and it's cheaper than construction permits. :)
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
Woodward's paper looks really bizarre. When he quite correctly arrives at a contradiction (even obviously wrong) with conservation of energy when he assumes constant thrust with constant power, he doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that it's because his theory just doesn't work.
Woodwards Theory has their own thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
Some may consider EmDrive and Woodwards devices similar, but we're really dealing with Microwave frequencies versus Ultrasonic frequencies on his device. No expert on it at all, but I mentioned earlier that it seemed too close to things like this: http://waset.org/publications/10000733/cleaning-performance-of-high-frequency-high-intensity-360-khz-frequency-operating-in-thickness-mode-transducers
Don't think his theories blend well with EmDrive theories, in fact they may obscure some theoretical advances made in EmDrive work recently.
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
Woodward's paper looks really bizarre. When he quite correctly arrives at a contradiction (even obviously wrong) with conservation of energy when he assumes constant thrust with constant power, he doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that it's because his theory just doesn't work.
Exactly.
I have specific criticisms scattered throughout a few posts, and Tellmeagain wrote a paper detailing the issues, which can be found here. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319)
-
... The equation also shows that we want the lowest order mode harmonic...
All of this agrees with @Notsosureofit's model as well.
That makes sense. The lowest fundamental frequencies should have the highest amplitudes.
Higher mode shapes like TE013 instead of TE011 have been emphasized by some following Shawyer. One justification for that is that (if one does not have other means to provide an asymmetry, like electrostrictive inserts or ferromagnetic ends) TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
TE013 has the maximum energy density closer to the small end than TE012 (which has the maximum energy density towards the middle of the longitudinal direction).
[/color]
This is one reason I'm pursuing TE013.
I've reached the limits in the home lab with vibration and noise and EM interference. I'm starting on a program over the next 6 weeks to set up a new lab. Separate power, EMI shielded and vibration isolated along with some new and better equipment.
Before I can put up this cute little building for the Space Lab I have my work cut out for me.
This attached pic is the area next to the house I'm going to be clearing off to set this lab. I've got to Split and move all the wood, grade and level the ground and pour the concrete. Erect the building, insulate it, wire it, EMI shield and heat it. Then comes the real work, moving in and setting up the test equipment and start to test. I guess you could ask why I'm doing this? Simple, error bars and to get myself from two prancing 135 pound Great Pyrenees and on stable ground.
Oh thank goodness I have a tractor with a loader and can grade. I want this to be done by Thanksgiving by adding some sweat and blisters.
Back to work!
My Best,
Shell
PS: Many more details in the construction and lab isolation I've not included.
Suggestion: Before you pour the foundation pad, put a #2/0 bare copper ring around the whole pad. Due to frost level, I would put it at least 18" deep, and put ground rods in all 4 corners, then ground that to the rebar in the pad. Leave a copper tail sticking up through the concrete. Then purchase one of those outdoor metal sheds, and set it on the concrete and ground it. Viola! You have a cheap faraday cage. Then put insulation and wiring inside. Steel is not as good as mu-metal, but it's better than nothing and it's cheaper than construction permits. :)
Good ideas and you betcha I see the reasoning, you're a very sharp guy. Also you got to see George's presentation at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop as well and the many details needed to reduce the error bars. Did you notice that in the MEGA and MET data there were no error bars? That bothers me. (Dr. Rodal, you have a answer?)
One end of the mini-lab will be setup, isolated physically (vibration isolation) from the rest of the little lab and fully enclosed in a grounded Faraday cage with screen and backed with sheet steel walls, much like you describe. The test stand will be surrounded with Mu-Metal sections with non-bent overlapping sections (very important).
My goal is to reduce the error bars and increase the measurement of thrust as far as I can in air and it's going to take attention to detail. My goodness, I'd not be dropping all this money and sweat if I didn't think it was worthwhile to pursue.
Best to you,
Shell
-
...Good ideas and you betcha I see the reasoning, you're a very sharp guy. Also you got to see George's presentation at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop as well and the many details needed to reduce the error bars. Did you notice that in the MEGA and MET data there were no error bars? That bothers me. (Dr. Rodal, you have a answer?)...
Shell
Shell, please remember, for example, the graph by Woodward showing measured force vs. voltage, for different voltages, which included the range of values for each plotted point.
In any case, "error bars" (as often used by the Quality Control, and the Social Sciences community) often represent one standard deviation. From a rigorous statistical viewpoint it is inappropriate to use standard deviation as a measure of dispersion for a process with undetermined statistical distribution because the use of one standard deviation presumes a Gaussian Normal distribution. For experiments where people are still debating what is being measured, including what is the physical process responsible, there may not be a basis upon which to assume a Gaussian distribution (which is often assumed by Quality Control people and people involved in the Social Sciences because a) it is the simplest distribution that allows simple, explicit, formulas for calculation and b) many random processes in Quality Control and Social Sciences approximately obey it (*), but that is not applicable for a variety of well known processes). The appropriate approach would be to plot histograms to assess the proper distribution law, but unfortunately many experimental papers lack the number of statistical samples to make such determinations.
Personally, when I showed plots comparing experimental data with calculations, I plotted all the experimental points . This is the approach advised by great statisticians like Tukey and Mosteller, which I think is much superior to anyone that would hide the number of experimental points (the sample population) behind a "standard deviation error bar" that is not justified statistically when there is a small number of experiments and the distribution is normal, or when the distribution is not normal (for any number of statistical samples), or when the distribution is unknown (displaying standard deviation error bars in those cases would constitute a misuse of statistics).
______________
(*) And many other processes do not, foremost upon which is the "Dismal Science" (Economics), where normal distributions have been assumed for economic processes that have been shown to not justify such an assumption (fat tails).
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics for the misuse of statistics.
(**) George never had the time to properly discuss statistical methods. He only had a chance to show a bullet point about it as a title saying that of course statistical analysis is recommended. I doubt that George would advocate the use of standard deviation error bars based on sample data for experiments where a statistical distribution is unknown and cannot be justified by histograms or even for the case of a known underlying normal distribution when the number of experiments is too small.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
-
...Good ideas and you betcha I see the reasoning, you're a very sharp guy. Also you got to see George's presentation at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop as well and the many details needed to reduce the error bars. Did you notice that in the MEGA and MET data there were no error bars? That bothers me. (Dr. Rodal, you have a answer?)...
Shell
Shell, please remember, for example, the graph by Woodward/Fearn showing measured force vs. voltage, for different voltages, which did include the range of experimental results for each plotted point, and hence included a statistical assessment of the data.
"Error bars" (as often used by the Quality Control, and the Social Sciences community) often represent one standard deviation. From a rigorous statistical viewpoint it is inappropriate to use standard deviation as a measure of dispersion for a process with undetermined statistical distribution because the use of one standard deviation presumes a Gaussian Normal distribution. For experiments where people are still debating what is being measured, including what is the physical process responsible, there may not be a basis upon which to assume a Gaussian distribution (which is often assumed by Quality Control people and people involved in the Social Sciences because a) it is the simplest distribution that allows simple, explicit, formulas for calculation and b) many random processes in Quality Control and Social Sciences approximately obey it (*), but that is not applicable for a variety of well known processes). The appropriate approach would be to plot histograms to assess the proper distribution law, but unfortunately many experimental papers lack the number of statistical samples to make such determinations.
Personally, when I showed plots comparing experimental data with calculations, I plotted all the experimental points . This is the approach advised by great statisticians like Tukey and Mosteller, which I think is much superior to anyone that would hide the number of experimental points (the sample population) behind a "standard deviation error bar" that is not justified statistically when there is a small number of experiments and the distribution is normal, or when the distribution is not normal (for any number of statistical samples), or when the distribution is unknown (displaying standard deviation error bars in those cases would constitute a misuse of statistics).
______________
(*) And many other processes do not, foremost upon which is the "Dismal Science" (Economics), where normal distributions have been assumed for economic processes that have been shown to not justify such an assumption (fat tails).
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics for the misuse of statistics.
(**) George never had the time to properly discuss statistical methods. He only had a chance to show a bullet point about it as a title saying that of course statistical analysis is recommended. I doubt that George would advocate the use of standard deviation error bars based on sample data for experiments where a statistical distribution is unknown and cannot be justified by histograms or even for the case of a known underlying normal distribution when the number of experiments is too small.
There are a few things that are not related to the DUT and those are related to the test stand. What is the max/min resolution of the device and are the deviations linear or not. Are there thermal errors that can be shown? These relate to even when running one or just a few tests.
Shell
-
...There are a few things that are not related to the DUT and those are related to the test stand. What is the max/min resolution of the device and are the deviations linear or not. Are there thermal errors that can be shown? These relate to even when running one or just a few tests.
Shell
Yes of course, but that is not a requirement for the use of standard deviation error bars in plots of results where one cannot justify assuming a Gaussian distribution. (or where the number of experiments is too small so that the sample standard deviation is unrepresentative of the true statistical standard deviation). Using standard deviation error bars for presentation of such data in such cases would constitute a misuse of statistical methods.
An error bar is really a shorthand way to parameterize a Probability Density Function (PDF). Most often this means pretending the PDF is Gaussian. Many experimenter's sins with error bars come from incorrectly assuming Gaussian distributions or having too few data points.
Again, in such a case it is better to plot all the experimental points (as I presented) instead of using standard deviation error bars.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
So what should happen if a high Q-factor cavity builds up a lot of energy inside, and the resonant state is disrupted by some mechanism such as cavity deformation? Would the sudden reduction in ground state create a large impulse?
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
So what should happen if a high Q-factor cavity builds up a lot of energy inside, and the resonant state is disrupted by some mechanism such as cavity deformation? Would the sudden reduction in ground state create a large impulse?
Absolutely! Just like popping a balloon. I had the idea of using a shutter a long time ago, but I think that reaction would be more like a photon rocket impulse than a gravity impulse. We could think of Zeta as the leakage, if the big end were say, partially transparent and partially reflective, like the output mirror of a laser. The thrust should increase a tiny bit due to the photon rocket effects, and then it becomes a Gravity Assisted Photon Rocket, or GAP Drive. ;D We'd need a new Thread.
-
Well, I found the error I predicted in my post above, and I've fixed it. Overall conclusion is not altered.
-
Warp Tech - the math in your paper is beyond me.
However, I believe it is 'frustum,' not 'frustm.'
Might I humbly suggest you check the equations for similar typo type errors?
-
Warp Tech - the math in your paper is beyond me.
However, I believe it is 'frustum,' not 'frustm.'
Might I humbly suggest you check the equations for similar typo type errors?
Thank you for catching the typos. As I said, "1st Draft"... I'm sure there's more to come. ::)
-
Todd, you keep doing what you're doing. 8)
-
Warp Tech - the math in your paper is beyond me.
However, I believe it is 'frustum,' not 'frustm.'
Might I humbly suggest you check the equations for similar typo type errors?
Thank you for catching the typos. As I said, "1st Draft"... I'm sure there's more to come. ::)
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
-
Warp Tech - the math in your paper is beyond me.
However, I believe it is 'frustum,' not 'frustm.'
Might I humbly suggest you check the equations for similar typo type errors?
Thank you for catching the typos. As I said, "1st Draft"... I'm sure there's more to come. ::)
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
I think you mean to use lower frequencies to maximize thrust/larger cavities. where g~1/f^2 or something like that. I think it seems similar to what Rodal was saying about using larger cavities to lower the frequency and maximize thrust. Both notsureofit's and WarpTech's math seem to have this.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
-
Warp Tech - the math in your paper is beyond me.
However, I believe it is 'frustum,' not 'frustm.'
Might I humbly suggest you check the equations for similar typo type errors?
Thank you for catching the typos. As I said, "1st Draft"... I'm sure there's more to come. ::)
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
Thanks for the corrections! Your conjectures are correct.
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
So you're thinking that the asymetrical heat dissipation equates to asymmetrical energy dissipation, and the larger the asymmetry in energy dissipation, the greater the gravitational thrust the frustum generates to offset that asymmetry?
So, in addition to cooling fins on the large end, should the small end be thermally insulated?
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
Engineering reality says modes that have eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall is a hard yakka build. Especially if the end plate needs to be removed to tune the coupler position. As Dave discovered, even what he thought was a good external solder seam around each end plate, had internally gaps and where the gaps were and eddy currents needed to flow, resulted in arching across the gap.
Exciting in TE01x mode eliminates end plate to side wall eddy currents and makes removable end plates possible.
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
How do you explain the "Q Conundrum". If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust? In all cases when energy is removed from a cavity the Q is reduced. What is it about the EM-Drive that makes this not the case? Isn't it another example where CoE is violated? Has anyone collected data from a functioning EM-Drive that shows this relation between Q and thrust?
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
Once we get to engineered devices (effect is proven, not trying to do super-high resolution experiments to prove the effect and tease out the exact nature of the physics driving it), we will have many more options to get the required high heat dissipation. For example, two-phase evaporation heat transfer on the frustum would produce extremely high heat transfer coefficients. Then you can move the heat rejection to space to other places on the body of the craft. Little to no new technology required, just a straightforward adaptation to a new application.
mh
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
Here an example with dimensions for a relative flat frustum and TE011 at 2.45GHz.
Todd, is this kind of design what you are talking about?
Rb/Rs=1.5
L <Rs
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
How do you explain the "Q Conundrum". If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust? In all cases when energy is removed from a cavity the Q is reduced. What is it about the EM-Drive that makes this not the case? Isn't it another example where CoE is violated? Has anyone collected data from a functioning EM-Drive that shows this relation between Q and thrust?
There is no infinite Q as an anomalous skin depth effect results in losses even with superconducting cavities.
To accelerate, the small end directed reaction force generated as a result of unequal end plate radiation pressure needs to do work on the mass. The energy to do the work comes from the cavity energy, becoming another per cycle loss effect and reducing Q.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
Engineering reality says modes that have eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall is a hard yakka build. Especially if the end plate needs to be removed to tune the coupler position. As Dave discovered, even what he thought was a good external solder seam around each end plate, had internally gaps and where the gaps were and eddy currents needed to flow, resulted in arching across the gap.
Exciting in TE01x mode eliminates end plate to side wall eddy currents and makes removable end plates possible.
Hi Todd,
Looking at your equation for T, am I correct in seeing the following geometric terms based on the radius? (1/L factor omitted below for clarity)
T ~ (Rb-Rs)*(Rs3/Rb3)
In your paper you mention that the optimal size ratio Rs/Rb=2/3.
Wouldn't a ratio of Rs/Rb=3/4 result in a higher thrust? Or perhaps there are other factors not explicitly listed in the "T" approximation? (I'd reference an equation number, but I didn't see any ;))
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
Here an example with dimensions for a relative flat frustum and TE011 at 2.45GHz.
Todd, is this kind of design what you are talking about?
Rb/Rs=1.5
L <Rs
Exactly! Wow, that looks great. Thank you.
Edit: It reminds me of some UFO photos from the 70's. No?
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
"Performance also improves with the lowest order mode frequency"
So your theory predicts improved thrust for TM010, TE111, TM011, and TE011 over the often discussed TE013? Would TM010 have the greatest thrust since it is the lowest order mode?
It doesn't look like you've taken spherical end-caps into account. There is a significant difference in the internal volume when using spherical end-caps. I want to work up a FEKO model that incorporates your "ratio of the radii, Rb/Rs = 1.500." and "The length L should be no longer than Rs is wide, shorter is better and the performance improves as 1/L." Should I use flat or spherical end-caps?
My model uses a cylinder with flat end-caps. Spherical end caps should increase the Q and will increase the thrust, provided the differential dissipation is the same and favors the big end.
Regarding mode "shapes", I'm still mulling that over but the model says the lower the frequency and shorter the length, the better the performance, like a tapered pill-box.
Engineering reality says modes that have eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall is a hard yakka build. Especially if the end plate needs to be removed to tune the coupler position. As Dave discovered, even what he thought was a good external solder seam around each end plate, had internally gaps and where the gaps were and eddy currents needed to flow, resulted in arching across the gap.
Exciting in TE01x mode eliminates end plate to side wall eddy currents and makes removable end plates possible.
Hi Todd,
Looking at your equation for T, am I correct in seeing the following geometric terms based on the radius? (1/L factor omitted below for clarity)
T ~ (Rb-Rs)*(Rs3/Rb3)
In your paper you mention that the optimal size ratio Rs/Rb=2/3.
Wouldn't a ratio of Rs/Rb=3/4 result in a higher thrust? Or perhaps there are other factors not explicitly listed in the "T" approximation? (I'd reference an equation number, but I didn't see any ;))
Thanks, I know the paper needs work to be published. This feedback is what I'm looking for.
I ran a derivative optimization in MathCAD and the Maxima is at Rb/Rs = 1.5. 4/3 is smaller, and the thrust drops off quickly on the smaller side.
NOTE: I am still working on this. The equations are written "assuming" there is a frequency shift. However, Zeta could equally be interpreted as simply a loss of power at the same frequency. I don't see any means of distinguishing between them yet. All that is implied is that there is a gradient in the power dissipation, and Q helps to maximize the power dissipated AND the weight of the stored energy. My thinking is, that the power dissipated is going to balance the input power, and whatever the Loaded Q is under this condition, is what determines the steady state thrust.
Working on it...
-
Here an example with dimensions for a relative flat frustum and TE011 at 2.45GHz.
Todd, is this kind of design what you are talking about?
Rb/Rs=1.5
L <Rs
It seems notable that the geometries have been converging towards Shawyer's in more or less the same order, but we still lack cut and dry data that proves "yes, this works definitively and scales in this manner."
-
Hi Todd,
Looking at your equation for T, am I correct in seeing the following geometric terms based on the radius? (1/L factor omitted below for clarity)
T ~ (Rb-Rs)*(Rs3/Rb3)
In your paper you mention that the optimal size ratio Rs/Rb=2/3.
Wouldn't a ratio of Rs/Rb=3/4 result in a higher thrust? Or perhaps there are other factors not explicitly listed in the "T" approximation? (I'd reference an equation number, but I didn't see any ;))
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
Your equation goes like Co*Rs^3*(Rb-Rs)/Rb^3/L where his equation goes: g~Co*Rs^2*(Rb-Rs)/Rb^3/L
The difference would give you a different maximum when you take the df(Rs)/d(Rs)=0
-
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
I think you mean to use lower frequencies to maximize thrust/larger cavities. where g~1/f^2 or something like that. I think it seems similar to what Rodal was saying about using larger cavities to lower the frequency and maximize thrust. Both notsureofit's and WarpTech's math seem to have this.
I believe I may have been mistaken here. If I substitute 2/3*Rb=Rs in for Rs in Co^2*Rs^2*(Rb-Rs)/Rb^3/L then I get that the force isn't even dependent on the radius R and only 4*Co^2/(27*L) where L may determine resonant frequency. Smaller wavelengths leading to larger frequencies so your are correct I suppose. I am a little worried about the magnitude of force that could be present with the speed of light squared and wonder if it really applies.
-
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
I think you mean to use lower frequencies to maximize thrust/larger cavities. where g~1/f^2 or something like that. I think it seems similar to what Rodal was saying about using larger cavities to lower the frequency and maximize thrust. Both notsureofit's and WarpTech's math seem to have this.
I believe I may have been mistaken here. If I substitute 2/3*Rb=Rs in for Rs in Co^2*Rs^2*(Rb-Rs)/Rb^3/L then I get that the force isn't even dependent on the radius R and only 4*Co^2/(27*L) where L may determine resonant frequency. Smaller wavelengths leading to larger frequencies so your are correct I suppose. I am a little worried about the magnitude of force that could be present with the speed of light squared and wonder if it really applies.
When you compute the thrust, the c2 cancels out the one in g, because we are using the weight of the energy as the mass, m = E/c2, when multiplying m*g. So it's supposed to be there.
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
Woodward's paper looks really bizarre. When he quite correctly arrives at a contradiction (even obviously wrong) with conservation of energy when he assumes constant thrust with constant power, he doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that it's because his theory just doesn't work.
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
-
...
And yes, doing it for a fixed 100W RF input would be best, since then I can estimate the gain in the cavity for a given input power.
Todd, there seems to be an issue regarding strong different energy density from big end to the other with such a design, at least for TE011. Using higher modes like TE012 or TE013 (or higher) the difference is much stronger as you can see if you take a look to my avatar pic.
This difference is even smaller when the frustum is flatter .
You can read the approx value for each region using the scale attached to the single field pics.
All other conditions like frequency, mode and so on is equal to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596982#msg1596982
-
His paper being wrong is no more a matter of opinion than 1+1=2 being a matter of opinion.
I must admit that I've been skimming the thread a bit as of late due to the rate and volume of updates; have you gone into the specifics of the mistakes contained in the Woodward paper in prior posts?
Woodward's paper looks really bizarre. When he quite correctly arrives at a contradiction (even obviously wrong) with conservation of energy when he assumes constant thrust with constant power, he doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that it's because his theory just doesn't work.
Exactly.
I have specific criticisms scattered throughout a few posts, and Tellmeagain wrote a paper detailing the issues, which can be found here. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319)
I'm sorry to have to say this but Tellmeagain's paper did not successfully deal with Woodward's paper in my opinion. I found errors and felt the conclusion was unduly harsh towards Woodward and his distinguished career.
-
...
And yes, doing it for a fixed 100W RF input would be best, since then I can estimate the gain in the cavity for a given input power.
Todd, there seems to be an issue regarding strong different energy density from big end to the other with such a design, at least for TE011. Using higher modes like TE012 or TE013 (or higher) the difference is much stronger as you can see if you take a look to my avatar pic.
This difference is even smaller when the frustum is flatter .
You can read the approx value for each region using the scale attached to the single field pics.
All other conditions like frequency, mode and so on is equal to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596982#msg1596982
Thanks for this! It's interesting none the less. @Rodal said that TM modes are easier to acquire, so maybe try a few of those. There is no magic sauce. The equation simply tells us that frequency is in the denominator. So the higher the frequency, the lower the thrust for a given set of dimensions. TE-011 is the lowest frequency mode, but other than a variable in the equation, there is nothing in my model that would predict the performance of each mode shape.
-
Great work! Two more nitpicks inside the quotation marks, since my reader doesn't support more elaborate formatting...
1. Once again, simplify by "substituting", ωs~c0χm,nRs,
2. If the rate of decay at each end is asymmetrical, such that the big end absorbs and dissipates more power than the small end", t"he stored energy will have a tendency to "fall" toward the big end.
Since your model appears to rely on differential dissipation, could there be a double benefit by making the small side superconducting, and allowing the big side to do all of the dissipation?
Your 1/f relationship indicates the potential for more force in a smaller package by going to higher frequencies, holding the resonant mode shape constant. The trick is to keep the dissipating end cool through good heat transfer practices, and to produce the resonant mode at the smaller distance scale. Am I understanding your predictions correctly?
Once we have repeatable test setups with known error bounds, these predictions should be testable to confirm the validity of your model.
mh
I think you mean to use lower frequencies to maximize thrust/larger cavities. where g~1/f^2 or something like that. I think it seems similar to what Rodal was saying about using larger cavities to lower the frequency and maximize thrust. Both notsureofit's and WarpTech's math seem to have this.
I believe I may have been mistaken here. If I substitute 2/3*Rb=Rs in for Rs in Co^2*Rs^2*(Rb-Rs)/Rb^3/L then I get that the force isn't even dependent on the radius R and only 4*Co^2/(27*L) where L may determine resonant frequency. Smaller wavelengths leading to larger frequencies so your are correct I suppose. I am a little worried about the magnitude of force that could be present with the speed of light squared and wonder if it really applies.
Has anyone built or proposed building a RF resonator using a higher frequency solid state source like a automotive radar Tx module? ( 77 GHz Transceiver, NXP Semiconductor PN MR2001-77) Power consumption is only 2.7 watts. Dimension and mass is small. It could be packaged on a custom PCB very precisely, & output measurement with integrated MEMS strain/force sensors for all non constrained axis. This lend itself to using very precise test & measurement equipment.
-
...
And yes, doing it for a fixed 100W RF input would be best, since then I can estimate the gain in the cavity for a given input power.
Todd, there seems to be an issue regarding strong different energy density from big end to the other with such a design, at least for TE011. Using higher modes like TE012 or TE013 (or higher) the difference is much stronger as you can see if you take a look to my avatar pic.
This difference is even smaller when the frustum is flatter .
You can read the approx value for each region using the scale attached to the single field pics.
All other conditions like frequency, mode and so on is equal to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596982#msg1596982
Thanks for this! It's interesting none the less. @Rodal said that TM modes are easier to acquire, so maybe try a few of those. There is no magic sauce. The equation simply tells us that frequency is in the denominator. So the higher the frequency, the lower the thrust for a given set of dimensions. TE-011 is the lowest frequency mode, but other than a variable in the equation, there is nothing in my model that would predict the performance of each mode shape.
Is there any way to combine your theory(equations) with http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis ??
The mode shape/ field pattern should be considered because its essential for the energy density in the different regions of a truncated conical cavity with conductive walls.
OK to consider the energy density is more complicated than using this approximation formulas but it seems reasonable to involve this physical fact.
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all.
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all.
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ?
-
Bob012345, I think you are are missing some important details about what is being said about CoE and why Woodward's paper is very wrong. First from a previous post, you asked:
...
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
You said you are a physics major, but you clearly have forgotten some of the basic physics relevant to this discussion. P = F*v is literally one form of the definition of power in classical mechanics, so yes, that is true as long as you include all relevant energy.
(Note: I have an engineering degree, which came with a physics heavy curriculum)
"Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
That's what they say. They don't say one can't have a constant force acting as long as you want. That's basic mechanics. They worry about how much energy it takes to generate that force. I've never seen that worry expressed in any text on classical mechanics.
There is no problem with constant force, there is a problem with trying to claim that the power required to generate that force is constant. Every text on classical mechanics shows as I stated above, the power to apply constant force is P=F*v. After this it is trivially obvious that the power required to apply a constant force must increase with time.
He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
Yes. He says you can define the proper interval up to the point where the energies are equal.
I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
I think you are missing something here. Woodward is merely stating that in each interval, the total input energy must equal the kinetic energy as seen from a frame where the acceleration started from rest. He's basically saying one can always find such an interval for a given energy input and force. He's saying that's all that matters and his critics are simply wrong about CoE. Of course when you add up the effect of the frames the overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force. It doesn't typically come up since problems usually involve an outside constant force applied in the observer frame and not a force generated in and by the accelerating ship.
(emphasis mine)
No, he is the one that is wrong about CoE, and very blatantly.
First, he is adding energy across reference frames, which doesn't make sense as you have pointed out before, but you seem to think it is fine when Woodward does it.
Second, finding a single interval where things ad up doesn't change the fact that physics still has to work in between.
Third, "overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force." is wrong on 2 counts:
-the overally kinetic energy grows quadratically, not exponentially, I assume this is a typo.
-energy input doesn't grow linearly in classical mechanics. There is no such thing as a constant force/power ratio by definition in classical mechanics. The introduction of a device that does directly contradicts classical mechanics.
The critics have to show how the ship frame knows what it's velocity is and what mechanism is invoked by nature to reduce the force and thus acceleration to comply with the critics view of CoE. If that's been done please point me to it. I don't think it has. At least you are consistent in you belief that because of CoE, the device would not work at all in any frame under any circumstance. But then your problem is to justify why won't work at least as well as radiation pressure.
You keep asking for the critics to explain the mechanism by which the device could work when the whole point is that a device cannot work as described, or it is a source of free energy. It is up to the person claiming the device works to propose a way that it could obey conservation of energy.
You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
There might be some confusion because of the example you gave of the cannon. In that example, the whole problem was already assumed to be within the bounds of Woodward's condition. In other words, the total input energy does equal the total kinetic energy. Breaking up that problem into steps is not necessary but I did it only to illustrate that it can be done. Yet you seemed to object how I did that which had nothing to do with MET's or EmDrives but just simply mechanics. Each frame is faster than the previous and when you take that into account it all ads up. Woodward says when the input energy is less than the kinetic energy, consider an interval where they are equal. It's just a way of looking at the problem.
In general, equating energy input in the ships frame with kinetic energy in the observers frame is confusing frames in my view.
How many times do I have to explain that it is the energy stored in the observer frame in the battery, so it is not confusing frames?
What Woodward does changing references frames every time that energy goes overunity in the last part of his paper is badly confusing frames. Also, just to be sure, energy conservation is broken completely, not just after a certain amount of time. Energy disappearing into nothing is also a problem, and that is what happens as soon as you turn the device on, unless it can be explained where that energy goes (and you can't just say losses, you have to be specific)
And one final time, since this is the point you seem to be missing in this last post: Constant force is not a problem at all in classical mechanics. Constant power providing a constant force is where things break. Woodward's entire paper is trying to show that a device can generate constant force using constant power, but this is simply and completely inconsistent with classical mechanics. (Special relativity tweaks the definition of energy, which in turn tweaks the definition of power, so a constant force/power ratio becomes allowed, but it is strictly limited to a ratio of 1/c, or lower with inefficiencies.)
You and Tellmeagain say Woodward's paper is wrong. I haven't seen a poll as to what the majority of folks here think but that would be interesting. I think you are grossly misunderstanding Woodward point and you simply can't see it.
I understand what F*v is. I call it the mechanical power and my classical mechanics book says it's the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all. I've brought this up before myself. It is directly derived from Newton's Second Law. It's simply the rate of change of kinetic energy in any frame of reference. This is why it's different for different observers. But when integrated, F*v equals the change in kinetic energy in all frames. That's why the Work-Energy Theorem works.
If I provide an external force to an object in a fixed frame starting from rest, then the minimum energy it takes to accelerate that object does correspond to the kinetic energy which does correspond to integrating F*v. Woodward states this as does Shawyer. If I push the object all the way to Alpha-Centauri I have to put in all the energy equal to the total kinetic energy it gains by acceleration and looses by deceleration in that fixed frame. Nature does this within the approximation of a uniform gravitational field or the force on an electron in a uniform electric field. But this is not the situation we were discussing. We were discussing a fundamentally different situation where the force is generated and applied within a non-inertial accelerating reference frame like a rocket.
You asserted it's impossible to provide a fixed force at a constant power in any frame. Consider the rocket. In a test stand a rocket motor certainly can provide a static thrust at a fixed power. No denying that. And it can do the same in space, provide a fixed force or thrust at a fixed power. I didn't say the acceleration is constant, but the force. You can deny that again if you like but it's a simply fact. The thrust is fixed by the fuel consumption rate and the exhaust velocity ignoring a minor pressure term. The power of the rocket engine can be expressed as the thrust times the exhaust velocity u is its F*u. The rocket velocity v first starts at zero in some frame then approaches, then surpasses u in that fixed observer frame. Yet we know rockets can gain more velocity than the exhaust velocity so F*v can be greater than F*u!
I believe you confuse the power that generates the force F*u with the power of the force on the rocket, F*v. When you observe the rocket from a fixed frame of reference, the mechanical power grows as F*v while the engine power is fixed at F*u. But the frame the engine is working in is not that fixed frame you observe in so you cannot equate them!
I mentioned the photon rocket in the past as a example of fixed power providing fixed force and was told I was wrong. Now you admit that's correct for light at the end of your post. But 1/c is not the best one can do. Simple beam propulsion gives 2/c. The new NASA data gives 300/c equivalence if it stands up to scrutiny. It's equivalent to simple photon recycling with has already been proven to work.
To me, it's so very simple and straightforward. In any instantaneous rest frame of the device, where the force is always actually applied, the velocity is zero. Thus, the MET or EmDrive device can apply a force without violation of CoE. Woodward, Shawyer, Fetta and their supporters are correct and those who are building devices in this group are doing a good thing.
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all.
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ?
What precisely does an isolated system mean? It would still conserve momentum correct?
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
-
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ?
How can I say how it works? I think if it works, momentum is conserved and by whatever means momentum is conserved,there is some form of 'exhaust' that the device 'borrows' kinetic energy from depending in the frame you observe it in. The exhaust could be an interaction with the universe as a whole or something else. But I don't appeal to a specific theory such as a quantum vacuum. We don't even need to know the precise mechanism why to calculate the dynamics.
I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
Sorry if I was not clear enough. You do not need to choice a precise theory. But you need to say if you consider the Emdrive as an isolated system, or a stealing energy system. A discussion about CoE has no sense without an hypothesis about that.
-
You and Tellmeagain say Woodward's paper is wrong. I haven't seen a poll as to what the majority of folks here think but that would be interesting. I think you are grossly misunderstanding Woodward point and you simply can't see it.
I understand what F*v is. I call it the mechanical power and my classical mechanics book says it's the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all. I've brought this up before myself. It is directly derived from Newton's Second Law. It's simply the rate of change of kinetic energy in any frame of reference. This is why it's different for different observers. But when integrated, F*v equals the change in kinetic energy in all frames. That's why the Work-Energy Theorem works.
If I provide an external force to an object in a fixed frame starting from rest, then the minimum energy it takes to accelerate that object does correspond to the kinetic energy which does correspond to integrating F*v. Woodward states this as does Shawyer. If I push the object all the way to Alpha-Centauri I have to put in all the energy equal to the total kinetic energy it gains by acceleration and looses by deceleration in that fixed frame. Nature does this within the approximation of a uniform gravitational field or the force on an electron in a uniform electric field. But this is not the situation we were discussing. We were discussing a fundamentally different situation where the force is generated and applied within a non-inertial accelerating reference frame like a rocket.
You asserted it's impossible to provide a fixed force at a constant power in any frame. Consider the rocket. In a test stand a rocket motor certainly can provide a static thrust at a fixed power. No denying that. And it can do the same in space, provide a fixed force or thrust at a fixed power. I didn't say the acceleration is constant, but the force. You can deny that again if you like but it's a simply fact. The thrust is fixed by the fuel consumption rate and the exhaust velocity ignoring a minor pressure term. The power of the rocket engine can be expressed as the thrust times the exhaust velocity u is its F*u. The rocket velocity v first starts at zero in some frame then approaches, then surpasses u in that fixed observer frame. Yet we know rockets can gain more velocity than the exhaust velocity so F*v can be greater than F*u!
I believe you confuse the power that generates the force F*u with the power of the force on the rocket, F*v. When you observe the rocket from a fixed frame of reference, the mechanical power grows as F*v while the engine power is fixed at F*u. But the frame the engine is working in is not that fixed frame you observe in so you cannot equate them!
I mentioned the photon rocket in the past as a example of fixed power providing fixed force and was told I was wrong. Now you admit that's correct for light at the end of your post. But 1/c is not the best one can do. Simple beam propulsion gives 2/c. The new NASA data gives 300/c equivalence if it stands up to scrutiny. It's equivalent to simple photon recycling with has already been proven to work.
To me, it's so very simple and straightforward. In any instantaneous rest frame of the device, where the force is always actually applied, the velocity is zero. Thus, the MET or EmDrive device can apply a force without violation of CoE. Woodward, Shawyer, Fetta and their supporters are correct and those who are building devices in this group are doing a good thing.
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
-
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
If I understand 3rd NL correctly, *any* force is always bi-directional, i.e. if you generate a fixed force using electrical power, you're exerting the same (but opposite in direction) force on the device generating this power. You cannot get a force from "a field" without exerting an opposite force on the source of this field. Any field is just a mediator between objects. Also, when doing CoM and CoE calculations, you need to take into account the entire system, i.e. including the power or "field" generating device/object. If EmDrive is "pushing" against something, you will inevitably see CoE broken *unless* you take that "something" into account as well. So I believe trying to reason that the EmDrive can have constant acceleration for constant power w/o breaking CoE (and without knowing what it pushes against) is futile.
-
Has anyone built or proposed building a RF resonator using a higher frequency solid state source like a automotive radar Tx module? ( 77 GHz Transceiver, NXP Semiconductor PN MR2001-77) Power consumption is only 2.7 watts. Dimension and mass is small. It could be packaged on a custom PCB very precisely, & output measurement with integrated MEMS strain/force sensors for all non constrained axis. This lend itself to using very precise test & measurement equipment.
Please allow me to point you to:
https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive and
https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
-
What precisely does an isolated system mean? It would still conserve momentum correct?
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
In physical science (but not thermodynamics) an isolated system is a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
If the Emdrive works as an isolated system, it does not need anything to interact with. And of course, it violates CoE, and CoM.
If the Emdrive does not work as an isolated system, there is no possible discussion about CoE without having at least hypothesis of how it interacts.
For example, if it is stealing Energy from ZPF, it can accelerate as much as you wish, even with no electrical power needed, you just need to tell that the Kinetic Energy gained in a given referential comes from the ZPF.
At the opposite, if the Emdrive is a way of pushing the ship away from the earth, pushing distantly as a car pushes on the road, your acceleration has to decrease with the speed relatively to the earth to still verify CoE.
You can not discuss CoE without making hypothesis. Isolated/non isolated. And if non Isolated is chosen, the way is is non isolated has much importance also.
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
How do you explain the "Q Conundrum". If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust? In all cases when energy is removed from a cavity the Q is reduced. What is it about the EM-Drive that makes this not the case? Isn't it another example where CoE is violated? Has anyone collected data from a functioning EM-Drive that shows this relation between Q and thrust?
I would like to see data collected about Q and its effect. One would probably need to measure Q and then do test runs. later cavity corrosion may reduce Q for later runs.
Good question, "If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust?" If there were thrust the energy would have to come from the currents and the light in the cavity. I've read before superconductors can maintain a current for an extremely long time as if they have no resistance. SMES work this way and are Superconductive Magnetic Energy Storage I believe is what it stands for. I think they store a magnetic field inside a toroid, in the form of stress, and when power is needed they can be drained and the magnetic field dies down. So something has to drain its power for the power to be lost.
1) If it is thermal loss, as in WarpTech's hypothesis, then I don't see how a 100% superconductor frustum could possibly give the needed thrust. Unless that thermal loss is asymmetric.
2) If the thrust comes from direct energy (currents and light) to frustum with nothing in between then I see problems with momentum conservation as well as explaining how the light changes in mass.
3) If the thrust comes from currents and light coupling with the vacuum via a change in index of the vacuum via some unknown relativistic effect, with a back reaction on the vacuum via the change in index, then I can see how an infinite Q cavity could still provide thrust. Energy would be being lost to accelerating the vacuum. Light inside should be red-shifted by accelerating the vacuum via the change in mass effect, and the cavity should experience and equal and opposite reaction. One would observe what appears to be a cavity with a lower Q than it should have by classical effects. If one put it in a thermal bath and measured power in compared to the heat found in the water, there should be missing heat being carried off by the vacuum.
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12263767291116468273&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029)
"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0004027)
EMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
-
the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all
Different frames see the same total power, if you consider the whole interacting system. I.E. if you consider the propellant expelled as making part of the system. You have to do that, since the ship is not isolated from the propellant. Ship+propellant can be an isolated system, and so you can consider Ship+propellant.
Considering Ship+propellant, the power delivered by the force to take into account is the sum of power delivered by the force on the ship, and the power delivered by the force on the propellant. The increase of this sum is limited by the energy spent.
Of course your rocket can get more Kinetic Energy increase in the earth referential that it spent chemical Energy, because it steals Kinetic Energy it to the propellant. It was already explained several times by others. The faster your ship, the most Kinetic Energy it steals to the propellant. That works because the ship is not isolated from the propellant
But if you consider the sum of Kinetic Energy of the ship, and the Kinetic Energy of the propellant, and that ship+propellant is isolated from other systems, this sum never increases more than the Chemical energy spent.
-
Latest information from Roger Shawyer:
An interview with the International Business Times is scheduled for release next week-end. It is very much a background story.
For a more technical update look out for his latest patent GB2537119, which is due to be published on Wednesday 12 Oct.
Enjoy the reads.
-
[
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed.
-
...
And yes, doing it for a fixed 100W RF input would be best, since then I can estimate the gain in the cavity for a given input power.
Todd, there seems to be an issue regarding strong different energy density from big end to the other with such a design, at least for TE011. Using higher modes like TE012 or TE013 (or higher) the difference is much stronger as you can see if you take a look to my avatar pic.
This difference is even smaller when the frustum is flatter .
You can read the approx value for each region using the scale attached to the single field pics.
All other conditions like frequency, mode and so on is equal to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596982#msg1596982
Thanks for this! It's interesting none the less. @Rodal said that TM modes are easier to acquire, so maybe try a few of those. There is no magic sauce. The equation simply tells us that frequency is in the denominator. So the higher the frequency, the lower the thrust for a given set of dimensions. TE-011 is the lowest frequency mode, but other than a variable in the equation, there is nothing in my model that would predict the performance of each mode shape.
Is there any way to combine your theory(equations) with http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis ??
The mode shape/ field pattern should be considered because its essential for the energy density in the different regions of a truncated conical cavity with conductive walls.
OK to consider the energy density is more complicated than using this approximation formulas but it seems reasonable to involve this physical fact.
Technically, @Notsosureofit's formula for thrust and my own are not that much different. He has;
X2m,n / f3 which will be ~ 1/Xm,n
..same as mine. He also has 1/L which is the same as mine. So I don't see how there's any difference in the way the mode shapes are treated. My method implies that as the thrust performance improves, the relative losses increase. If that's true, then the loaded Q of the cavity will go down due to the higher losses. So the simulation showing not as much intensity in the flat frustum as compared with TE-013 in the longer frustum, does not imply that the performance is worse and not better. The field strength may be lower because there are higher losses and more thrust. We won't know until we test one. I have hope anyway.
-
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed.
This question was asked as part of a discussion where some involved are considering the EMDrive as a porpellantless thruster with no reaction mass. Otherwise I would agree with you. Bob012345's answer to this would be enlightening relative to how he views the emDrive, since in one post he will make statements that indicate he understands how CoE works, and in the next he defends a paper that is blatantly wrong.
Bob012345, I could respond to your recent post, but I already responded to most of those points and you did not seem to understand what I said. Please answer as58's question, this might help resolve this discussion.
I will say this:
I'm sorry to have to say this but Tellmeagain's paper did not successfully deal with Woodward's paper in my opinion. I found errors and felt the conclusion was unduly harsh towards Woodward and his distinguished career.
I have not found errors in Tellmeagain's paper, and the only things I have seen from you involve you not understanding what is being discussed.
I do not know of a way to state "Woodward's paper is completely wrong with many major errors" that is not harsh. I would ask why you call Woodward's career distinguished, but it does not matter if his career was Einstein's, Fermi's, and Hawking's all rolled up into one; that paper would still be wrong.
-
I would like to see data collected about Q and its effect. One would probably need to measure Q and then do test runs. later cavity corrosion may reduce Q for later runs.
Good question, "If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust?" If there were thrust the energy would have to come from the currents and the light in the cavity. I've read before superconductors can maintain a current for an extremely long time as if they have no resistance. SMES work this way and are Superconductive Magnetic Energy Storage I believe is what it stands for. I think they store a magnetic field inside a toroid, in the form of stress, and when power is needed they can be drained and the magnetic field dies down. So something has to drain its power for the power to be lost.
1) If it is thermal loss, as in WarpTech's hypothesis, then I don't see how a 100% superconductor frustum could possibly give the needed thrust. Unless that thermal loss is asymmetric.
2) If the thrust comes from direct energy (currents and light) to frustum with nothing in between then I see problems with momentum conservation as well as explaining how the light changes in mass.
3) If the thrust comes from currents and light coupling with the vacuum via a change in index of the vacuum via some unknown relativistic effect, with a back reaction on the vacuum via the change in index, then I can see how an infinite Q cavity could still provide thrust. Energy would be being lost to accelerating the vacuum. Light inside should be red-shifted by accelerating the vacuum via the change in mass effect, and the cavity should experience and equal and opposite reaction. One would observe what appears to be a cavity with a lower Q than it should have by classical effects. If one put it in a thermal bath and measured power in compared to the heat found in the water, there should be missing heat being carried off by the vacuum.
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12263767291116468273&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029)
"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0004027)
EMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
-
...
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
Thanks. So what your saying is that you think that it is the heat loss that is causing the variation of the index of the vacuum in the cavity which would make concept 3) not operate efficiently in a 100% superconducting cavity 1) and make both concepts be joined?
Or are we talking that the thermal gradient is the energy being lost via the accelerating vacuum instead.
-
...
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
Thanks. So what your saying is that you think that it is the heat loss that is causing the variation of the index of the vacuum in the cavity which would make concept 3) not operate efficiently in a 100% superconducting cavity 1) and make both concepts be joined?
Well, "heat loss" could be "any" loss of power from the field that encourages the CM of the field to propagate toward the big end. Another possibility could be mode shifting. Who knows? It could be energy dropping from TE-013, to TE-012, to TE-011 as it decays. That could also be considered a loss of power that would propagate the CM toward the rear.
I just had a thought! If the frustum is continuously charged with MW's such that the input and the losses are balanced at equilibrium, then the CM of the field should be stable. If that happens, then the CM of the frustum is not going to move either. To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
Didn't some of rfmwguy's results show the thrust peaking after the RF was shut off? This needs to be correlated with a port reading of what is going on inside after the RF is shut off.
-
To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
You mean pulsed and allowed to decay for 5x cavity TC like this? Pulse time is ~20% of 1 cavity TC. Decay time is ~25x the pulse time.
As far as I know, the middle image is a real measurement. Note the over and under shoots on the total power and force curves. BTW forward power during the pulse would look like the force curve, which is why it ramps up like it does, following the forward power ramp up.
-
[
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed.
The question not making sense was sort of the point here...
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/health/interstellar-travel-space-physics/index.html
and CNN still only mentions the Warp Drive concept of Dr. White back from 2014...I guess they still see EmDrive only as controversial drive. They actually never ever mentioned EmDrive. It can be kind of a shocker to the wide public and I presume it will only start more wild speculation when the paper is out...
I wonder if that paper coming out in December may change it.
Also an update to Mr. Traveller email from Mr. Shawyer. My sources are telling me that we should be checking IBTimes tomorrow. IBTimes reports on EmDrive are one of the best around.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/health/interstellar-travel-space-physics/index.html
and CNN still only mentions the Warp Drive concept of Dr. White back from 2014...I guess they still see EmDrive only as controversial drive. They actually never ever mentioned EmDrive. It can be kind of a shocker to the wide public and I presume it will only start more wild speculation when the paper is out...
I wonder if that paper coming out in December may change it.
Also an update to Mr. Traveller email from Mr. Shawyer. My sources are telling me that we should be checking IBTimes tomorrow. IBTimes reports on EmDrive are one of the best around.
CNN's space science reporting has been crap ever since they got rid of Miles O'Brien.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/health/interstellar-travel-space-physics/index.html
and CNN still only mentions the Warp Drive concept of Dr. White back from 2014...I guess they still see EmDrive only as controversial drive. They actually never ever mentioned EmDrive. It can be kind of a shocker to the wide public and I presume it will only start more wild speculation when the paper is out...
I wonder if that paper coming out in December may change it.
Also an update to Mr. Traveller email from Mr. Shawyer. My sources are telling me that we should be checking IBTimes tomorrow. IBTimes reports on EmDrive are one of the best around.
CNN's space science reporting has been crap ever since they got rid of Miles O'Brien.
For a moment I thought you were joking and referring to the StarTrek character...
But it turns out there is indeed a science journalist that has worked for CNN with that name....
Lost an arm due to a (silly) accident...damn...:(
-
Bread crumb 1:
Interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQqMvtXTTKY
Bread crumb 2:
GiloIndustriesGroup was founded by Giles/Gilo Cardozo.
They build flying machines, flying cars plus do work for aerospace companies like Boeing, etc
Bread crumb 3:
Giles Cardozo owns 60 shares of Universal Propulsion Ltd and SPR owns 40.
Roger Shawyer and Michael Sheridan are the directors of Universal Propulsion Ltd.
Question:
Will Giles/Gilo Cardozo be the 1st human to fly an EmDrive powered flying machine over Everest and maybe redo the Everest Quest that was denied him?
http://www.rotronuav.com/mission-everest
-
....
Bread crumb 3:
Giles Cardozo owns 60 shares of Universal Propulsion Ltd and SPR owns 40.
Roger Shawyer and Michael Sheridan are the directors of Universal Propulsion Ltd....
Universal Propulsion incorporated 29th June 2016
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752/filing-history
pdf attached
Bread crumb 2:
GiloIndustriesGroup was founded by Giles/Gilo Cardozo.
They build flying machines, flying cars
Giles Cardozo "parajet skycar"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parajet_Skycar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHfOBf03q78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U31ci4OTYxk
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/health/interstellar-travel-space-physics/index.html
and CNN still only mentions the Warp Drive concept of Dr. White back from 2014...I guess they still see EmDrive only as controversial drive. They actually never ever mentioned EmDrive. It can be kind of a shocker to the wide public and I presume it will only start more wild speculation when the paper is out...
I wonder if that paper coming out in December may change it.
Also an update to Mr. Traveller email from Mr. Shawyer. My sources are telling me that we should be checking IBTimes tomorrow. IBTimes reports on EmDrive are one of the best around.
CNN's space science reporting has been crap ever since they got rid of Miles O'Brien.
For a moment I thought you were joking and referring to the StarTrek character...
But it turns out there is indeed a science journalist that has worked for CNN with that name....
Lost an arm due to a (silly) accident...damn...:(
He was one of my favorite CNN correspondents until CNN got rid of their space science division some years ago. I see him every once in a while here in Atlanta. He has a metal pincher prosthetic. He now consults for them when there are aviation questions. :-\
-
Interesting recent interview with Gilo Cardozo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-usplF5PP0
"I do believe we will revolutionize personal transportation".
Maybe part Elon Musk, part Richard Branson and part Gilo Cardozo?
Now owner of 60% of Universal Propulsion Ltd and 40% via Roger Shawyer's SPR. Could be a very interesting Joint Venture.
-
Very interesting finding. The Gilo Industries Group (http://www.giloindustriesgroup.com) owns 4 Companies. Besides their flying motorized paragliders (https://www.parajet.com) and motoracing company (http://www.crightonracing.com), they also own Rotron Power Ltd. (http://www.rotronuav.com) which sells a range of advanced rotary engines especially made to power their vehicles as well as other UAV, drones and VTOL. Exactly like Moller International with the Rotapower engine for his Skycar (http://www.moller.com and http://freedom-motors.com). Rotary engines are classical combustion engines but are very compact and offer a high thrust/power ratio.
This conventional technology is however quite noisy and still uses fossil fuel.
Even more interesting, the 4th company is Gilo Industries Research Ltd. No public web site this time, but that description on its parent company page:
The pace of change is exponential, creating an imperative for Gilo Industries Group to build core competencies in envisioning the future and developing technology for long-term competitive advantage. Gilo Industries Research is the dedicated technology research and development (R&D) lab within the Gilo Group. Our R&D team explores new and emerging technologies to create a vision of how the Group will shape the future and invent the next wave of cutting-edge aerospace solutions.
Within Gilo Industries Research, innovation is not just a philosophy - it is how the team operates every day. Gilo Industries Research are a critical part of a life-cycle designed to continuously generate innovation, and scale it to improve the Group's service offerings and bring new ideas and opportunities to clients. Gilo Industries Research have an R&D process that provides structure and repeatability, taking pioneering technologies from a mere concept to a fully scalable solution.
If the EmDrive could work at least like ion thrusters it would revolutionise deep space travel allowing the colonisation of our solar system, but if it could also work as a 1g lift engine it would also revolutionise life here on Earth (and elsewhere) replacing all conventional vehicles with clean and silent VTOLs. Well, I need to stop dreaming for now…
Anyway, that lab seems to be a very good candidate for the manufacturing of EmDrive prototypes (phase 1-2) on behalf of SPR Ltd. And Universal Propulsion Inc. seems a very good candidate to produce and test working devices further.
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/09431248/
http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/10257752/
-
Very interesting finding. The Gilo Industries Group (http://www.giloindustriesgroup.com) owns 4 Companies. Besides their flying motorized paragliders (https://www.parajet.com) and motoracing company (http://www.crightonracing.com), they also own Rotron Power Ltd. (http://www.rotronuav.com) which sells a range of advanced rotary engines especially made to power their vehicles as well as other UAV, drones and VTOL. Exactly like Moller International with the Rotapower engine for his Skycar (http://www.moller.com and http://freedom-motors.com). Rotary engines are classical combustion engines but are very compact and offer a high thrust/power ratio.
This conventional technology is however quite noisy and still uses fossil fuel.
Even more interesting, the 4th company is Gilo Industries Research Ltd. No public web site this time, but that description on its parent company page:
The pace of change is exponential, creating an imperative for Gilo Industries Group to build core competencies in envisioning the future and developing technology for long-term competitive advantage. Gilo Industries Research is the dedicated technology research and development (R&D) lab within the Gilo Group. Our R&D team explores new and emerging technologies to create a vision of how the Group will shape the future and invent the next wave of cutting-edge aerospace solutions.
Within Gilo Industries Research, innovation is not just a philosophy - it is how the team operates every day. Gilo Industries Research are a critical part of a life-cycle designed to continuously generate innovation, and scale it to improve the Group's service offerings and bring new ideas and opportunities to clients. Gilo Industries Research have an R&D process that provides structure and repeatability, taking pioneering technologies from a mere concept to a fully scalable solution.
If the EmDrive could work at least like ion thrusters it would revolutionise deep space travel allowing the colonisation of our solar system, but if it could also work as a 1g lift engine it would also revolutionise life here on Earth (and elsewhere) replacing all conventional vehicles with clean and silent VTOLs. Well, I need to stop dreaming for now…
Anyway, that lab seems to be a very good candidate for the manufacturing of EmDrive prototypes (phase 1-2) on behalf of SPR Ltd. And Universal Propulsion Inc. seems a very good candidate to produce and test working devices further.
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/09431248/
http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/10257752/
Add SkyBike Technologies Ltd
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06455570
Nature of business (SIC)
30300 - Manufacture of air and spacecraft and related machinery
-
"I do believe we will revolutionize personal transportation".
Maybe part Elon Musk, part Richard Branson and part Gilo Cardozo?
Now owner of 60% of Universal Propulsion Ltd and 40% via Roger Shawyer's SPR. Could be a very interesting Joint Venture.
I'll say it. Sounds like they could be working on a flying car. Though the name "Universal Propulsion Limited" implies that perhaps they will be working on an emdrive engine framework that can be used in various applications.
-
"I do believe we will revolutionize personal transportation".
Maybe part Elon Musk, part Richard Branson and part Gilo Cardozo?
Now owner of 60% of Universal Propulsion Ltd and 40% via Roger Shawyer's SPR. Could be a very interesting Joint Venture.
I'll say it. Sounds like they could be working on a flying car. Though the name "Universal Propulsion Limited" implies that perhaps they will be working on an emdrive engine framework that can be used in various applications.
Wonder if Gilo is the UK aerospace company Roger said he was working with on the cryo EmDrive? They claim to do aerospace work with companies like Boeing.
Would seem to fit.
-
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
That address is the home of Michael Kenneth Sheridan. He is a director and Secretary of SPR and now also Universal Propulsion.
Several of the Gilo group companies have that registered address.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/xX8x4BZGbu2SpXiTyF-2wl5fr_w/appointments
GILO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (09431248)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09431248
GILO INDUSTRIES RESEARCH LIMITED (07278024)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07278024
SKYBIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD (06599124)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06599124
SKYBIKE LTD (06619374)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06619374
SKYBIKE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (06455570)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06455570
Registered as a Manufacture of air and spacecraft and related machinery.
Which would make SkyBike Technologies Ltd a UK Aerospace company
With the same registered office as Universal Propulsion Ltd.
-
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
That address is the home of Michael Kenneth Sheridan. He is a director and Secretary of SPR and now also Universal Propulsion.
Several of the Gilo group companies have that registered address.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/xX8x4BZGbu2SpXiTyF-2wl5fr_w/appointments
I had it wrong, so I deleted that post. It was the SPR address that we found on google earth a while back that I believe is Michael Kenneth Sheridan's: Oakways, Tubbs Lane, Highclere, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 9PQ
-
...
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
Thanks. So what your saying is that you think that it is the heat loss that is causing the variation of the index of the vacuum in the cavity which would make concept 3) not operate efficiently in a 100% superconducting cavity 1) and make both concepts be joined?
Or are we talking that the thermal gradient is the energy being lost via the accelerating vacuum instead?
Well, "heat loss" could be "any" loss of power from the field that encourages the CM of the field to propagate toward the big end. Another possibility could be mode shifting. Who knows? It could be energy dropping from TE-013, to TE-012, to TE-011 as it decays. That could also be considered a loss of power that would propagate the CM toward the rear.
I just had a thought! If the frustum is continuously charged with MW's such that the input and the losses are balanced at equilibrium, then the CM of the field should be stable. If that happens, then the CM of the frustum is not going to move either. To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
Didn't some of rfmwguy's results show the thrust peaking after the RF was shut off? This needs to be correlated with a port reading of what is going on inside after the RF is shut off.
Ok so I guess your equation accepts the possibility that the cavity could be interacting with and losing energy to the Quantum Vacuum which may be possible even in a 100% superconducting cavity. As long as there is energy being lost via some medium. So you would agree if it was "energy being lost to the vacuum" that suspending the device in an insulated heat bath and comparing energy in, to the rise in temperature of the water, may result in a discrepancy in energy accumulated in the heat bath?
One of the reasons I lean towards this is because of the measurement of the pill shaped cavity with no asymmetry and their picking up space time distortions from it suggest that maybe it was the energy density inside the cavity that was inducing some change in the vacuum.
-
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
That address is the home of Michael Kenneth Sheridan. He is a director and Secretary of SPR and now also Universal Propulsion.
Several of the Gilo group companies have that registered address.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/xX8x4BZGbu2SpXiTyF-2wl5fr_w/appointments
I had it wrong, so I deleted that post. It was the SPR address that we found on google earth a while back that I believe is Michael Kenneth Sheridan's: Oakways, Tubbs Lane, Highclere, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 9PQ
There seems to be 7 companies at that address. All with Giles, aka Gilo Cardozo as director or the major shareholder:
http://www.endole.co.uk/explorer/company/postcode/sp8-5qp
-
Last but not least, the two companies, Gilo Industries and Universal Propulsion, are both located in the middle of nowhere at the exact same address, about 120 miles from London:
Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road
Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP
England
That address is the home of Michael Kenneth Sheridan. He is a director and Secretary of SPR and now also Universal Propulsion.
Several of the Gilo group companies have that registered address.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/xX8x4BZGbu2SpXiTyF-2wl5fr_w/appointments
I had it wrong, so I deleted that post. It was the SPR address that we found on google earth a while back that I believe is Michael Kenneth Sheridan's: Oakways, Tubbs Lane, Highclere, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 9PQ
There seems to be 7 companies at that address. All with Giles, aka Gilo Cardozo as director or the major shareholder:
http://www.endole.co.uk/explorer/company/postcode/sp8-5qp
"Lawn Farm Barns, Shaftesbury Road Gillingham, Dorset SP8 5QP" is a large house in the country with a large workshop. Has to be Gilo's home.
"Oakways, Tubbs Lane, Highclere, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 9PQ" is Michael Kenneth Sheridan. I found this address for the first time listed as Roger's: 31 The Drive, Emsworth, Hampshire, PO10 8JP
They are using their home addresses and keeping the location of the lab secret as far as I can tell.
-
Well, "heat loss" could be "any" loss of power from the field that encourages the CM of the field to propagate toward the big end. Another possibility could be mode shifting. Who knows? It could be energy dropping from TE-013, to TE-012, to TE-011 as it decays. That could also be considered a loss of power that would propagate the CM toward the rear.
I just had a thought! If the frustum is continuously charged with MW's such that the input and the losses are balanced at equilibrium, then the CM of the field should be stable. If that happens, then the CM of the frustum is not going to move either. To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
Didn't some of rfmwguy's results show the thrust peaking after the RF was shut off? This needs to be correlated with a port reading of what is going on inside after the RF is shut off.
Ok so I guess your equation accepts the possibility that the cavity could be interacting with and losing energy to the Quantum Vacuum which may be possible even in a 100% superconducting cavity. As long as there is energy being lost via some medium. So you would agree if it was "energy being lost to the vacuum" that suspending the device in an insulated heat bath and comparing energy in, to the rise in temperature of the water, may result in a discrepancy in energy accumulated in the heat bath?
One of the reasons I lean towards this is because of the measurement of the pill shaped cavity with no asymmetry and their picking up space time distortions from it suggest that maybe it was the energy density inside the cavity that was inducing some change in the vacuum.
I don't know of any mechanism that would allow the vacuum to dissipate power at MW frequencies, unless those waves are doing work on the vacuum. So far, I have not seen any evidence of this. IMO the EM field is doing work on the frustum.
Regarding the laser and the pill box, I would not put too much stock into this experiment until it's been replicated and verified. The effect is so small, it could simply be refractive index distortion from hot air, like you see on a highway on a hot day. It was not done in a vacuum.
-
He was one of my favorite CNN correspondents until CNN got rid of their space science division some years ago. I see him every once in a while here in Atlanta. He has a metal pincher prosthetic. He now consults for them when there are aviation questions. :-\
Miles still works and can be seen reporting on PBS News Hour and I think also is doing stories for Nova.
He is very good. :)
-
Just a memory jog here:
Some 60's sounding rockets measured the impedance of the atmosphere as they traveled upward. Perhaps there may exist some free space data of antenna impedance change under acceleration, or at least a calculation of same.
Edit: complex impedance, the match included a discreet element delay line
-
[
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed.
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
-
What precisely does an isolated system mean? It would still conserve momentum correct?
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
In physical science (but not thermodynamics) an isolated system is a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
If the Emdrive works as an isolated system, it does not need anything to interact with. And of course, it violates CoE, and CoM.
If the Emdrive does not work as an isolated system, there is no possible discussion about CoE without having at least hypothesis of how it interacts.
For example, if it is stealing Energy from ZPF, it can accelerate as much as you wish, even with no electrical power needed, you just need to tell that the Kinetic Energy gained in a given referential comes from the ZPF.
At the opposite, if the Emdrive is a way of pushing the ship away from the earth, pushing distantly as a car pushes on the road, your acceleration has to decrease with the speed relatively to the earth to still verify CoE.
You can not discuss CoE without making hypothesis. Isolated/non isolated. And if non Isolated is chosen, the way is is non isolated has much importance also.
I assume the EmDrive conserves both momentum and energy. I just don't know the mechanism however if momentum is conserved, then energy follows as the ship will 'borrow' kinetic energy from the conserved momentum of the 'exhaust' whatever form that is, just as in a rocket where the payload kinetic energy gets higher as it borrows kinetic energy from the exhaust. I guess that makes it non-isolated by your definition.
The recent debate however concerned whether a constant force at a constant power is even possible in classical mechanics which is independent of EmDrives or MET devices.
-
The recent debate however concerned whether a constant force at a constant power is even possible in classical mechanics which is independent of EmDrives or MET devices.
My assumption is that it's not possible, and I would be very interested to see a working example of such as system (where the mechanism is well known). The problem is that constant force means constant acceleration, which breaks CoE in faster moving reference frames (since the power spent per time unit is the same). Since you can accelerate only by pushing against something (object, or perhaps some unknown or known field?), your speed relative to that "something" will increase, and it will be harder and harder to push (since you provide a larger increase of kinetic energy to that "something").
-
the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all
Different frames see the same total power, if you consider the whole interacting system. I.E. if you consider the propellant expelled as making part of the system. You have to do that, since the ship is not isolated from the propellant. Ship+propellant can be an isolated system, and so you can consider Ship+propellant.
Considering Ship+propellant, the power delivered by the force to take into account is the sum of power delivered by the force on the ship, and the power delivered by the force on the propellant. The increase of this sum is limited by the energy spent.
Of course your rocket can get more Kinetic Energy increase in the earth referential that it spent chemical Energy, because it steals Kinetic Energy it to the propellant. It was already explained several times by others. The faster your ship, the most Kinetic Energy it steals to the propellant. That works because the ship is not isolated from the propellant
But if you consider the sum of Kinetic Energy of the ship, and the Kinetic Energy of the propellant, and that ship+propellant is isolated from other systems, this sum never increases more than the Chemical energy spent.
I agree but when you look at the terms, both the gain in kinetic energy of the ship and the loss in kinetic energy of the propellant can dwarf the chemical energy. In the case of an EmDrive or MET device, I believe the ship borrows from the "propellant" even though we don't know what that exactly is. We do know the momentum of the "propellant" is the same as gained by the ship. And the ship borrows from that so the total energy input is whatever the EmDrive needed to make a constant force over a certain time period yet the kinetic energy gain of the ship as well as the loss of the "propellant" are huge in comparison. There is no violation of CoM or CoE. The apparent violation is comparing the total electrical input to the device with the ships final kinetic energy while ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
-
...ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
Wait, so the propellant already has kinetic energy? Where did it get it from? In the case of the conventional rocket, it gained this energy because it has been accelerating with the rocket (i.e. extra fuel was burnt just to accelerate the propellant). For EmDrive and other such devices, you cannot just assume that the "propellant" happens to have the right kinetic energy and momentum at any given time (i.e. co-moving with the device) so that it can "steal" kinetic energy from it. Makes no sense, right?
-
...ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
Wait, so the propellant already has kinetic energy? Where did it get it from? In the case of the conventional rocket, it gained this energy because it has been accelerating with the rocket (i.e. extra fuel was burnt just to accelerate the propellant). For EmDrive and other such devices, you cannot just assume that the "propellant" happens to have the right kinetic energy and momentum at any given time (i.e. co-moving with the device) so that it can "steal" kinetic energy from it. Makes no sense, right?
It's no different from a rocket. The propellant has kinetic energy because the ship already has. And it has a different kinetic energy in very frame. In whatever frame the momentum is conserved, the "propellant" has the energy already associated with that frame. You can't conclude it makes no sense if you don't know what it is.
I suspect the universe can provide momentum from any frame irrespective of velocity. Then, any observer would say that the universe can provide the momentum for a moving ship to borrow in that frame. In effect, every frame is the Center of Momentum of the universe just as every frame see the speed of light the same.
-
It's no different from a rocket. The propellant has kinetic energy because the ship already has. In whatever frame the momentum is conserved, the "propellant" has the energy already associated with that frame. You can't conclude it makes no sense if you don't know what it is.
I suspect the universe can provide momentum from any frame irrespective of velocity. Then, any observer would say that the universe can provide the momentum for a moving ship to borrow in that frame. In effect, every frame is the Center of Momentum of the universe just as every frame see the speed of light the same.
The rocket had to spend extra energy to accelerate the propellant with it. It does not "just have the energy". If, as you say, the universe can "provide" a propellant to steal kinetic energy from in any frame, this means free energy. It's quite easy to think of a device that would convert this into free energy.
-
The recent debate however concerned whether a constant force at a constant power is even possible in classical mechanics which is independent of EmDrives or MET devices.
My assumption is that it's not possible, and I would be very interested to see a working example of such as system (where the mechanism is well known). The problem is that constant force means constant acceleration, which breaks CoE in faster moving reference frames (since the power spent per time unit is the same). Since you can accelerate only by pushing against something (object, or perhaps some unknown or known field?), your speed relative to that "something" will increase, and it will be harder and harder to push (since you provide a larger increase of kinetic energy to that "something").
A rocket's thrust can be constant in the ships frame as it depends on the dm/dt and the exhaust velocity to first order. It provides an invariant constant force. Of course, the acceleration can change as the mass decreases but that means it actually grows a bit. What does take an increasing power is where an external force is applied to an object in a fixed frame vs. The force being applied within an accelerating frame.
-
It's no different from a rocket. The propellant has kinetic energy because the ship already has. In whatever frame the momentum is conserved, the "propellant" has the energy already associated with that frame. You can't conclude it makes no sense if you don't know what it is.
I suspect the universe can provide momentum from any frame irrespective of velocity. Then, any observer would say that the universe can provide the momentum for a moving ship to borrow in that frame. In effect, every frame is the Center of Momentum of the universe just as every frame see the speed of light the same.
The rocket had to spend extra energy to accelerate the propellant with it. It does not "just have the energy". If, as you say, the universe can "provide" a propellant to steal kinetic energy from in any frame, this means free energy. It's quite easy to think of a device that would convert this into free energy.
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
Then you'd get there slower. You're just borrowing energy from the "propellant" and using it to charge your battery at the expense of a much slower trip. Summing up all energies would still yield the input energy.
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
Then you'd get there slower. You're just borrowing energy from the "propellant" and using it to charge your battery at the expense of a much slower trip. Summing up all energies would still yield the input energy.
I'm not going anywhere, I'm trying to generate free energy. My scheme would give more than 0.5 GJ per iteration.
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223
29 July 2015
However, he has now decided that it would be better to focus on putting EmDrive on to unmanned aerial vehicles, with the view to eventually use the technology in the automobile industry to create feasible flying cars.
"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK.
"The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."
Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.
Flying cars are currently being invented and prototypes do exist, but they are not exactly cars, but rather, an amalgamation of a car and an aeroplane. Two companies are trying to push this type of technology forward, Terrafugia and Aeromobil, but so far the world has not shown much interest.
"If you're trying to build a flying car, you don't start with an aeroplane, you start with a car. It makes it low cost and more affordable to manufacture an airframe that is more like an automobile body," said Shawyer.
"Hydrogen storage and fuel cells are available and affordable – all of this is in place. People are sick of travelling in two dimensions and sitting in traffic jams. You need to use the three dimensions. Space is a waste of time as it's so slow, and it's not a very big market. Mass transportation and other things are a much bigger market and major automobile manufacturers will be interested."
A member of the Gilo Industries Group, http://www.rotronuav.com builds UAV engines. Fits with SPR designing a EmDrive UAV for RotronUAV. Gilo Industries also fits with building flying cars.
As the IBTimes article is dated 29 July 2015, it would seem SPR & Gilo Industries have been working together for some time.
Just maybe Roger, with the help from Gilo Industries, will achieve his 2017 EmDrive powered drone.
-
I assume the EmDrive conserves both momentum and energy. I just don't know the mechanism however if momentum is conserved, then energy follows as the ship will 'borrow' kinetic energy from the conserved momentum of the 'exhaust' whatever form that is, just as in a rocket where the payload kinetic energy gets higher as it borrows kinetic energy from the exhaust. I guess that makes it non-isolated by your definition.
The recent debate however concerned whether a constant force at a constant power is even possible in classical mechanics which is independent of EmDrives or MET devices.
It is not a problem for the Emdrive, it is a problem for ANY device.
When you study a device, and that you wans to see if CoE is verified, you need to know it is isolated, or not isolated.
It is like if we were studying a bulb that is giving light continuously.
We mesure it weight, and see that is is the same weight each day. We use instruments that confirm that there is no desintegration inside. We confirm that it's chemical composition is stable.
If the bulb works as an isolated system, it is free energy. CoE is broken
If the bulb is plugged to the sector, we just have to mesure the currents, compare them to mesurements of light, and see there is no free energy.
We can not discuss about the bulb respecting or violating CoE without taking into account if it is plugged, or not plugged. If it is not plugged and lighting as long as needed, it is breaking CoE. If it is plugged, there no a priori reason to thing that CoE is violated.
If the Emdrive works like an isolated system, and gives constant thrust for constant power imput it is breaking CoE, AND CoM. As Dr Rodal has written a few days ago, it is an evidence.
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223
29 July 2015
. ... Space is a waste of time as it's so slow, and it's not a very big market. Mass transportation and other things are a much bigger market and major automobile manufacturers will be interested."
...
So Shawyer, who initially titled his company Satellite Propulsion R. , now, more than a decade later tells the press that Space is a waste of his time ? :(
Well, the title of this thread is still <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> and not to Mass Transportation close to the surface of the Earth, so most of the people at NSF do not share his present view of Space as being a waste of people's time...
Anyway, looking forward to any successful demonstration of a self-levitating EM Drive :)
A self-levitating EM Drive close to the surface of the Earth will be a convincing proof for any skeptic to see
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223
29 July 2015
. ... Space is a waste of time as it's so slow, and it's not a very big market. Mass transportation and other things are a much bigger market and major automobile manufacturers will be interested."
...
So Shawyer, who initially titled his company Satellite Propulsion R. , now, more than a decade later tells the press that Space is a waste of his time ? :(
Well, the title of this thread is still <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> and not to Mass Transportation on the surface of the Earth, so most of the people at NSF do not share his present view of Space as being a waste of people's time...
Maybe quote all that he said:
"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK.
Would suggest that a Gilo Industries EmDrive powered UAV will be very big news. And Roger is correct. A UAV can happen much faster and for a lot less money than a launch vehicle space application.
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years. But so far NASA can't find the money to keep Paul employed, so you really think the money to support EmDrives in space is ready to leap out of the budgets that are Ion drive directed?
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223
29 July 2015
. ... Space is a waste of time as it's so slow, and it's not a very big market. Mass transportation and other things are a much bigger market and major automobile manufacturers will be interested."
...
So Shawyer, who initially titled his company Satellite Propulsion R. , now, more than a decade later tells the press that Space is a waste of his time ? :(
Well, the title of this thread is still <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> and not to Mass Transportation on the surface of the Earth, so most of the people at NSF do not share that view of Space as being a waste of people's time...
I agree. But maybe we can forgive Shawyer in this point because of his personal situation.
Since many years he claims that his Emdrive works, and no space realisation was made. That personnal experience can give him the idea that there is not market for it in space.
Even with superconductive Emdrive, I do not see how it could be competitive with Electric cars. Except of course if it is giving constant thrust for constant power. In that case the first application should be a power generating device. A big rotating system at high speed linked to alternators. If the speed is high enough, it gives more energy that it needs. (I shall not speak of free energy, because it can be stolen to QV, fields, etc)
-
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years.
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
What Q is needed to make fly a drone stationary ? It seems difficult.
-
Even with superconductive Emdrive, I do not see how it could be competitive with Electric cars. Except of course if it is giving constant thrust for constant power. In that case the first application should be a power generating device. A big rotating system at high speed linked to alternators. If the speed is high enough, it gives more energy that it needs. (I shall not speak of free energy, because it can be stolen to QV, fields, etc)
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
Roger has already run the numbers on his rotary test rig and sorry to say but no free energy and A = F/M rules the day.
-
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years.
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
What Q is needed to make fly a drone stationary ? It seems difficult.
Maybe consider the 1st gen EmDrive UAVs may have wings but no propellers and almost NO NOISE.
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
-
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years.
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
What Q is needed to make fly a drone stationary ? It seems difficult.
Maybe consider the 1st gen EmDrive UAVs may have wings but no propellers and almost NO NOISE.
That is true. If your drone has a fineness of 10 (not sure that fineness is the right word in English) it asks 10 times less thrust that stationary flight.
But in that case it does not replace a parrot
-
I can't possibly understand why making a space oriented EMdrive, producing 0.4N/kW (±40gf), would be more difficult then developing an EMdrive producing 1 ton (9800N) of lifting power... Seriously? ???
I would be inclined to say it is actually the opposite...
In space there is no need to self-lifting/earth gravity defying devices to find applications that really make sense...
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
-
Even with superconductive Emdrive, I do not see how it could be competitive with Electric cars. Except of course if it is giving constant thrust for constant power. In that case the first application should be a power generating device. A big rotating system at high speed linked to alternators. If the speed is high enough, it gives more energy that it needs. (I shall not speak of free energy, because it can be stolen to QV, fields, etc)
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
Roger has already run the numbers on his rotary test rig and sorry to say but no free energy and A = F/M rules the day.
I do not see why I should consider another frame reference than Earth. If I get Energy on earth, that is not a problem if I do not get energy in another reference frame.
Also, In Emdrive Theory paper 9.4, shawyer clearly claimed that F was decreasing with the speed. With this model, there is no energy generation. But with the new model of constant F, there is energy generation.
-
But in that case it does not replace a parrot.
There's been a lot of strange statements in this thread, but this one takes the victory. And it is also indisputably true, unlike most strange statements.
Edit: Ok, it seems that something was lost in translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot_AR.Drone
-
So Shawyer, who initially titled his company Satellite Propulsion R. , now, more than a decade later tells the press that Space is a waste of his time ? :(
Well, the title of this thread is still <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> and not to Mass Transportation close to the surface of the Earth, so most of the people at NSF do not share his present view of Space as being a waste of people's time...
Anyway, looking forward to any successful demonstration of a self-levitating EM Drive :)
A self-levitating EM Drive close to the surface of the Earth will be a convincing proof for any skeptic to see
The information that TT and you, Dr. Rodal, posted in the previous messages established a couple of things:
1) The new venture is a 60%/40% split with Shawyer on the 40% side, and
2) The new partner is into flying cars and such and I assume is putting up the cash to fund things, and
3) Making money is something we all have to consider, even hedge fund creators.
I would take the "space is a waste of time" as a a throwaway remark that is more directed to potential investors and clients, not to the physics community.
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen.
-
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen.
I doubt Gilo Cardozo would have bothered with the Universal Propulsion Ltd JV if he didn't believe Roger could deliver. Seeing the Gilo 60% share ownership says heaps. Says to me this is a done deal and this deal has been baking for over a year.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
-
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen.
I doubt Gilo Cardozo would have bothered with the Universal Propulsion Ltd JV if he didn't believe Roger could deliver. Seeing the Gilo 60% share ownership says heaps. Says to me this is a done deal and this deal has been baking for over a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ?
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
Easy to do a generator with an continously increasing RPM... until a certain point. Than let it slow down and start again. Wind generators doesn't have constant RPM, and still works.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ?
You really do need to carefully read what he has said he never stated F will reduce as per velocity gain relative to departure. There is an internal doppler shift that occurs as the ship gets moving really fast and this does reduce F.
When an EmDrive accelerates, there are internal doppler shifts. With very high Q cryo cavities this can move the freq outside the very narrow cavity bandwidth. To counter this effect, the latest cryo designs vary the length of the cavity to adjust for the doppler shifted freq and bring the cavity back into resonance.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
Easy to do a generator with an continously increasing RPM... until a certain point. Than let it slow down and start again. Wind generators doesn't have constant RPM, and still works.
DC wind gen maybe but not AC mains synced.
There is no free energy and the EmDrive accelerates with constant force, constant acceleration. I have seen the data. That is the reality. Believing all the frames will see the same KE is madness as that is not how it works.
Look we have no idea how entanglement works, yet it does. The EmDrive works and produces constant force, which produces constant acceleration, well if properly designed to handle internal doppler shift.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ?
You really do need to carefully read what he has said he never stated F will reduce as per velocity gain relative to departure. There is an internal doppler shift that occurs as the ship gets moving really fast and this does reduce F.
When an EmDrive accelerates, there are internal doppler shifts. With very high Q cryo cavities this can move the freq outside the very narrow cavity bandwidth. To counter this effect, the latest cryo designs vary the length of the cavity to adjust for the doppler shifted freq and bring the cavity back into resonance.
fig 3.2 page 10. Shawyer states that when Unloaded Q tends to the infinite, the thrust limits to 333mN/Kw
I have already made the calculus of the maximum force if the thrust is inversely proportional to the speed in the departure reference frame.
I note F the force of the emdrive (the thrust) and V the speed in meters per second. I note W(1s) the work of the force F during one second
We have W(1s)=F*V
It makes F=W(1s)/V
The speed is 3km/s, and I shall take a work W of 1 KJ (1000 Joules)
So, it gives us F=1000/3000=0,333 N/Kw. It makes, 333 mN/Kw
Is it a coincidence if I find exactly the same number ?
In my understanding of old Shawyer papers, the doppler shift was due to the work done. There was no doppler shift for a non moving drive, and an increasing doppler shift for increasing speed.
There is a problem of course because the drive can loose resonance, but that is a different thing of the Doppler shift itself. For each gain of Kinetic Energy of the drive, there is a loss of the Energy of photons, in form of the Dopler shift. (it is not a waste loss, it has been converted into Kinetic Energy)
So, we must not confound the dopler shift itself, that means that Energy has quit the frustrum, and the problem of resonnance. Even if resonnance is maintained, the force is inversely proportional to the speed. (In the old Shawyer Theory)
-
Look we have no idea how entanglement works, yet it does. The EmDrive works and produces constant force, which produces constant acceleration, well if properly designed to handle internal doppler shift.
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ?
-
Even if resonnance is maintained, the force is inversely proportional to the speed. (In the old Shawyer Theory)
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ?
The EmDrive cannot know its "speed", because speed is not an absolute value, it is always relative to something else. Also, "speed" implies a movement at a constant pace. Alternatively, are we talking about Δv? Shall the correct phenomenon when such a "doppler shift" may occur within the cavity rather be when the drive is accelerating (and more exactly, when it is undergoing a proper acceleration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration)).
-
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
There is no clear evidence that that statement is true. I will continue waiting for you to provide any of the promised demonstrations.
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
The momentum that the em wave has originally came from the ship, so this is like saying you can move a car by sitting inside and pushing on the steering wheel.
And even if there was em momentum stored inside the cavity, this is limited by the momentum/energy ratio of a photon which is 1/c, and in less than 1 nanosecond, those photons will have reflected, reversed direction and caused the cavity to start moving in the other direction.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
You keep ignoring that the ship frame is noninertial. CoE is broken in ALL frames by propellantless thrusters, but you have to include "fictitious" forces to realize it in noninertial frames. (If photons were leaving the device, that would not be propellantless, and it would be no better than a laser for force generation.)
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
The claim of not producing force if it can't accelerate does not make any sense. Put an EMDrive up against a brick wall. The wall will have no effect on the drive unless the drive first applies a force to the wall. What you are proposing is then that the emDrive magically knows there is a wall in the way and won't generate force to begin with.
Besides, as was stated by GilbertDrive above, it is easy to turn just let it accelerate while hooked to a generator, or to let it run up to speed then hook up the generator to slow it down and take the kinetic energy. If you think constant rotational velocity is needed by generators, then you don't know how electric generation works. Wind turbines can feed the grid, and with inverters, and similar devices, who cares whether the free energy you are getting is AC or DC?
-
A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
So we can forget about hover cars, and those tests that show "anomalous" force when the EmDrive is standing on a scale or attached to a torsional pendulum are invalid (since there's no acceleration)?
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
-
A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
So we can forget about hover cars, and those tests that show "anomalous" force when the EmDrive is standing on a scale or attached to a torsional pendulum are invalid (since there's no acceleration)?
Scales and torsion pendulums have a spring constant that allows some initial acceleration.
A hover car is accelerating upward at 1g.
An EmDrive operates in 1 of 3 modes.
Idle, no internal doppler shift of the dual travelling waves.
Motor mode supporting acceleration via initial force big to small.
Generator mode resisting acceleration, via initial force small to big.
-
Todd, I note you keep using a cylinder in your mathematical models. Yet, one of the very few things that is known about this device is that a symmetrical shape (cylinder) results in zero thrust. So why persist in using a shape that will not work?
Another thought that keeps crossing my mind these days: evanescent waves. Clear back to the first versions of these threads, electrical engineers with extensive experience kept saying over and over again that this device, according to what they knew, should generate massive amounts of evanescent waves. Yet, as I recollect, this line of inquiry kept getting dropped or put off. Rodal's summary of the one theory at the recent Colorado conference is the first mention of evanescent waves I recollect seeing here in a long, long while.
Another thing I have started wondering about in recent weeks are the 'surges' - difficult or impossible to repeat episodes of very high thrust. Shell mentioned one such, as did Traveler. Possibly rfmwguy and Yang as well. These episodes turn up in multiple efforts, yet remain a puzzle.
There is also the puzzle with the model work - the ones that over a period of a thousandth of a second, if that - show exponential asymmetrical forces building within the cavity. I have yet to see one of these simulations extended to several seconds, to gauge just how great these internal forces may become. There is a tendency here to dismiss these simulations as 'noise,' yet they also predict the various modes with fair accuracy.
Then there are the 'nulls' - the builds that either produced no 'thrust,' or 'thrust' indistinguishable from the noise level.
And finally, there are the vacuum tests, which seem to produce 'thrust' far smaller than that in an atmosphere.
To my mind, a successful theory for how this device works needs to account in some way for all of these elements.
-
Todd, I note you keep using a cylinder in your mathematical models. Yet, one of the very few things that is known about this device is that a symmetrical shape (cylinder) results in zero thrust. So why persist in using a shape that will not work?
Another thought that keeps crossing my mind these days: evanescent waves. Clear back to the first versions of these threads, electrical engineers with extensive experience kept saying over and over again that this device, according to what they knew, should generate massive amounts of evanescent waves. Yet, as I recollect, this line of inquiry kept getting dropped or put off. Rodal's summary of the one theory at the recent Colorado conference is the first mention of evanescent waves I recollect seeing here in a long, long while.
Another thing I have started wondering about in recent weeks are the 'surges' - difficult or impossible to repeat episodes of very high thrust. Shell mentioned one such, as did Traveler. Possibly rfmwguy and Yang as well. These episodes turn up in multiple efforts, yet remain a puzzle.
There is also the puzzle with the model work - the ones that over a period of a thousandth of a second, if that - show exponential asymmetrical forces building within the cavity. I have yet to see one of these simulations extended to several seconds, to gauge just how great these internal forces may become. There is a tendency here to dismiss these simulations as 'noise,' yet they also predict the various modes with fair accuracy.
Then there are the 'nulls' - the builds that either produced no 'thrust,' or 'thrust' indistinguishable from the noise level.
And finally, there are the vacuum tests, which seem to produce 'thrust' far smaller than that in an atmosphere.
To my mind, a successful theory for how this device works needs to account in some way for all of these elements.
What can I say ThinkerX? That this is the reason I'm doing my new Lab? One of the quests I'm on is very close to what you describe.
Shell
-
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
There is no clear evidence that that statement is true. I will continue waiting for you to provide any of the promised demonstrations.
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
The momentum that the em wave has originally came from the ship, so this is like saying you can move a car by sitting inside and pushing on the steering wheel.
And even if there was em momentum stored inside the cavity, this is limited by the momentum/energy ratio of a photon which is 1/c, and in less than 1 nanosecond, those photons will have reflected, reversed direction and caused the cavity to start moving in the other direction.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
You keep ignoring that the ship frame is noninertial. CoE is broken in ALL frames by propellantless thrusters, but you have to include "fictitious" forces to realize it in noninertial frames. (If photons were leaving the device, that would not be propellantless, and it would be no better than a laser for force generation.)
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
The claim of not producing force if it can't accelerate does not make any sense. Put an EMDrive up against a brick wall. The wall will have no effect on the drive unless the drive first applies a force to the wall. What you are proposing is then that the emDrive magically knows there is a wall in the way and won't generate force to begin with.
Besides, as was stated by GilbertDrive above, it is easy to turn just let it accelerate while hooked to a generator, or to let it run up to speed then hook up the generator to slow it down and take the kinetic energy. If you think constant rotational velocity is needed by generators, then you don't know how electric generation works. Wind turbines can feed the grid, and with inverters, and similar devices, who cares whether the free energy you are getting is AC or DC?
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
The cavity in effect transfers momentum from the dual travelling waves (the apparent standing wave is just an illusion created by the dual travelling waves) EmWave to the frustum. Cavity stored energy drops as does cavity Q.
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
What do you mean "no propellant coming out the back except heat"? Heat is a property of matter, not a substance. Do you mean thermal radiation? To dissipate the entire mass as radiation, you would need half of it to be antimatter, and if you directed that energy straight out the back you would get a lot of momentum out of it, enough to be moving at a fraction of light speed I believe.
The step where a battery feeds in a new mass sounds like magic to me. Where does this new mass come from? If it is coming from the battery, then the battery must start with mass greater than M and it loses mass M in creating that mass. And assuming the battery is attached to the cylinder to begin with you then have to go back and redo the original calculations accounting for that, and don't forget to add in the effect of moving that mass around as well.
I am not sure why you posted that link, but it talks about several subtle concepts, and has some intermediate conclusions that it later explains the issues with. Anything short of reading the whole thing will give you an incorrect impression. My attempt to summarize the conclusion of it is that mass of fundamental particles that are charged is in part due to the electromagnetic potential energy, but not entirely, and we don't know if there is a way to tell the difference or if it matters. (The specifics are more subtle than this, but you have to read the whole thing to get it.) Nothing in it changes what I said above about the mass having to already be in the mass of the battery, if the battery creates the mass.
-
Look we have no idea how entanglement works, yet it does. The EmDrive works and produces constant force, which produces constant acceleration, well if properly designed to handle internal doppler shift.
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ?
As the frustum accelerates, the internal EmWave loses energy and is red shifted. In a high Q cryo cavity that red shift may be enough to cause the longer wavelength to be outside the cavities narrow bandwidth. Roget compensates for this by progressively increasing the cavity length during each short input pulse of Rf energy.
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
the data only himself has seen because it's "proprietary". But hey, he tells you that conclusive data exist, so why should you have the sligthest disbelief they might not?
-
Even if resonnance is maintained, the force is inversely proportional to the speed. (In the old Shawyer Theory)
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ?
The EmDrive cannot know its "speed", because speed is not an absolute value, it is always relative to something else. Also, "speed" implies a movement at a constant pace. Alternatively, are we talking about Δv? Shall the correct phenomenon when such a "doppler shift" may occur within the cavity rather be when the drive is accelerating (and more exactly, when it is undergoing a proper acceleration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration)).
Very pertinent argument. Also note that the context is clearly in Shawyer Theory
In Shawyer Theory paper 9.4, it woks as if the Emdrive was knowing it's speed in it's departure reference frame, and the Force is inversely proportional to the speed in this referential. I a just trying to convince that it is like that in the old Shawyer theory, not that it is true.
It is important to understand a theory before to discuss it's validity. Of course, I can understand the problem that there is in the emdrive knowing where it comes from. 2 drives coming from different places coud be very close, and have different performances since they come from different initial places. But this theory satisfy CoE. That is not worse.
I am the one who had the idea earlier in these threads that the acceleration needed mentionned by Shawyer was in fact proper acceleration ;)
Also if proper acceleration is needed for the emdrive to work, all static test should be null results. In that case, all experiments showing thrust are bias, except Shawyer Rotary test rig. And the cannae cubesat will be in generator mode because of the drag and will fell even faster than without the drive.
I already asked how much proper acceleration is needed for the drive to work. 0,0001G ? 0,00000000001G ? never got an answer.
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
That is why we can not discuss of CoE about the drive without any hypothesis isolated, or non isolated
The two masses are not isolated from each other. Because of the gravity. So I shall revisit the formulation of Wicoe
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
it becomes : the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, less the energy lost as waste heat, and less the potential gravity energy gained by the system ship-propellant (the presence of the propellant in space slow down a very very little the ship by gravity, and vice versa)
Generally we forget these "propellant gravity losses" because they are so smalls...
Of course, there is no need for a violation of CoE if the emdrive exploits any potential energy. Gravity, fields, ZPF, etc.
That is why when debating about CoE, we have to postulate if the emdrive works as an isolated system, or not.
Also, your example make me ask a fundamental question about relativist effect. With your thought experiment, from an external viewpoint, does the mass keep constant ?
A charged battery is more heavier than a discharged one. The potential chemical energy translates into mass with E=MC^2
Is it different for potential gravity energy ?
To calculate the total energy of a system, do we need to directly take into account the potentials energies, or is it enough to take temperature, masses and relative speeds ?
I am sure a GR specialist can tell us !
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
FEKO can compute the resonant freq of a frustum in say TE013 mode.
Excel modeling the frystum as a large number of small length connected cylinder sections yields the guide wavelength for each section per the excited mode & freq. Integrating them yields the average guide wavelength for the frustum. Then for say TE013 mode, calculating the resonance agrees very closely to the FEKO value thus showing using conventional microwave waveguide theory can be used to calculate guide wavelength at any point of the frustum.
The drop in EmWave momentum from the big to small end is not linear, so you can't just add up the axial side wall forces plus small end plate force and assume it equals big end plate force.
BTW with a constant diameter waveguide, such as used by Cullen, how can there be axial side wall forces that caused the reduction in end plate radiation pressure? What Cullen discovered was the end plate radiation pressure drops as per (external wavelength / guide wavelength) * conventional radiation pressure equation.
Here is a thought experiment for you. Take a resonant frustum, extend each end with a 1/4 wave length extension that matches the frustum end diameter, has constant diameter and has an end plate. Would you agree that the radiation pressure at end end plate should agree with Cullen's equations?
Would you agree that Cullen's equation will not show a linear decrease in end plate radiation as the diameter is altered?
-
Generator mode resisting acceleration, via initial force small to big.
TT, do you know or think that this "generator mode" provides some electric power while braking, or at least that the RF power fed to the cavity is less in this case than while creating the same force in a positive acceleration aka motor mode?
-
The recent debate however concerned whether a constant force at a constant power is even possible in classical mechanics which is independent of EmDrives or MET devices.
My assumption is that it's not possible, and I would be very interested to see a working example of such as system (where the mechanism is well known). The problem is that constant force means constant acceleration, which breaks CoE in faster moving reference frames (since the power spent per time unit is the same). Since you can accelerate only by pushing against something (object, or perhaps some unknown or known field?), your speed relative to that "something" will increase, and it will be harder and harder to push (since you provide a larger increase of kinetic energy to that "something").
I agree.
There is a possible working example for a limited time. We can tune an electric train for exemple, so that it drains a power from the line proportional to the speed, and run it in a vacuum tunnel.
It would for example drain 1kw at 1km/h (it is arbitrary) 2kw at 2km/h 100kw at 100 km/h
We can do this until the maximum instantaneous power that the motor can deliver is reached. We can probably do it easily from 1km/h to 500km/h, and have constant accceleration.
but once it is achieved, we can not continue any longer constant acceleration with the train.
The problem is that having constant acceleration drains an increasing quantity of power. so, we are limited by our energies.
To maintain constant force at constant power without braking CoE, an Emship just does not have to steal energy, it has to steal more energy when it goes faster.
We are used to exploit energies. In the history, exploitation of new energies is unseparable from technical progress. We started with human muscle power. Then animal Power, then water power (watermills in medieval period) then wind power, then steam power, then petrol power, then nuclear power.
Each new energy gave new possibilities, and some a very strong increase in awailable total power, but each one was limited in production. Each animal, windmill, watermill, steam machine, nuclear power plant is capable of a given power. No one can give a power linearily increasing during time. If the emdrive was working a constant acceleration for constant power by stealing energy, it would be the biggest revolution that energy production has ever seen.
-
A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
So we can forget about hover cars, and those tests that show "anomalous" force when the EmDrive is standing on a scale or attached to a torsional pendulum are invalid (since there's no acceleration)?
Scales and torsion pendulums have a spring constant that allows some initial acceleration.
A hover car is accelerating upward at 1g.
An EmDrive operates in 1 of 3 modes.
Idle, no internal doppler shift of the dual travelling waves.
Motor mode supporting acceleration via initial force big to small.
Generator mode resisting acceleration, via initial force small to big.
True for the Hover car.
about Scales and torsion pendulums
Just before the emdrive is turned on, even if it is linked to a spring, there is no proper acceleration due to the spring. It should not give force.
But this debate is futile if you do not give an order of the minimal proper acceleration needed. If my frustrum receives 1 more photon on one side, Does the radiative pressure of this photon give enough proper acceleration to go in motor mode ? do you need 0.00001 G ?0.000000000000001 G? 10^-50 G ?
-
Roger's new patent application. GB2537119.
My oh my.
IBTimes has already done a report on the new patent:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-patenting-new-design-next-gen-superconducting-thruster-1585982
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He got the Helical antenna right on. (one a NSFer did for me by 3D printing July 2015)
Saphire is a great thermal conductor and has a High dielectric constant (9.39 from 1.0 MHz to 8.5 GHz) a nice pick.
Shell
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He got the Helical antenna right on. (one a NSFer did for me by 3D printing July 2015)
Saphire is a great thermal conductor and has a High dielectric constant (9.39 from 1.0 MHz to 8.5 GHz) a nice pick.
Shell
But according to the patent application, the sapphire is strictly a substrate for the superconductor. It never sees the EM field due to the YBCO film. If the idea was to have a thermally stable substrate, quartz would have been a better (and certainly less expensive) choice. Additionally, the lattice mismatch between single crystal sapphire (Al2O3) and YBCO is pretty severe. Not a good choice.
-
The curved small end plate is clever as it correct for the phase distortion introduced by using the flat big end plate.
As the small end plate is not superconducting, it also generates a smaller radiation pressure on reflection than if superconducting so the result of Big force - Small force is a much larger action force toward the big end plate and thus a much larger reaction force toward the small end plate that makes the thruster accelerate big end to small end.
All as predicted by Roger's theory.
Beautiful patent of a real world partial cryo EmDrive. Well done Roger and team SPR.
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
funny answer: because sapphire drives price substantially up, so he can claim he did not build a working device because of lack of funding. Otherwise, if it were cheap, people would question "where is your working proof"?
kidding of course.
Looking forward to see it flying. if ever. But won't bet a pence on it.
-
Todd, I note you keep using a cylinder in your mathematical models. Yet, one of the very few things that is known about this device is that a symmetrical shape (cylinder) results in zero thrust. So why persist in using a shape that will not work?
Another thought that keeps crossing my mind these days: evanescent waves. Clear back to the first versions of these threads, electrical engineers with extensive experience kept saying over and over again that this device, according to what they knew, should generate massive amounts of evanescent waves. Yet, as I recollect, this line of inquiry kept getting dropped or put off. Rodal's summary of the one theory at the recent Colorado conference is the first mention of evanescent waves I recollect seeing here in a long, long while.
Another thing I have started wondering about in recent weeks are the 'surges' - difficult or impossible to repeat episodes of very high thrust. Shell mentioned one such, as did Traveler. Possibly rfmwguy and Yang as well. These episodes turn up in multiple efforts, yet remain a puzzle.
There is also the puzzle with the model work - the ones that over a period of a thousandth of a second, if that - show exponential asymmetrical forces building within the cavity. I have yet to see one of these simulations extended to several seconds, to gauge just how great these internal forces may become. There is a tendency here to dismiss these simulations as 'noise,' yet they also predict the various modes with fair accuracy.
Then there are the 'nulls' - the builds that either produced no 'thrust,' or 'thrust' indistinguishable from the noise level.
And finally, there are the vacuum tests, which seem to produce 'thrust' far smaller than that in an atmosphere.
To my mind, a successful theory for how this device works needs to account in some way for all of these elements.
Point 1) Why? Because Spherical harmonics and Hankel functions are beyond my mathematical capability and besides that. The procedure is the same, subtract the squared magnitude of the frequencies at either end of the frustum to determine the power lost. Conceptually, the result is identical. In Rodal's paper, he mentioned that there is no hard cut-off in the truncated spherical cone. No hard cutoff to me means that the frequency is free to shift depending on where it's at inside the truncated cone.
In a spherical truncated cone there will be attenuation and evanescent waves. These will result in losses. End result leads to the same equations. The difference in the squared magnitude of the frequencies to determine the power lost. Evanescent waves are simply waves that decay. They decay by doing work on the frustum, which "is" power lost from the cavity.
My explanation for the surges and nulls is the input frequency was dithered, not accurate or too high. If the input frequency is higher, there is more potential energy to decay to a lower frequency state. This can cause a surge. If the resonant frequency is the input frequency, or the input frequency is too low, the thrust should be null since there is no lower frequency to decay to. Compare the idea to a 2-state atom or a laser. The input frequency is the "pumped" state, where there is a population inversion. This provides a "Potential energy". When the energy decays to the lower frequency, it provides thrust.
And finally, air has mass that is also accelerated by the "g" field inside. Remove the air and F=ma is obviously reduced.
As for my thought experiment; in this example what difference will the shape make? I could've called the shape a cube or a sphere, it wouldn't matter provided the two masses start at opposite ends and are gravitationally attracted to each other.
-
Looks like saphire has better thermal conductivity than quartz.
W/(m x K) at 300K:
Saphire: 23.1 parallel to optical axis, 25.2 perpendicular to optical axis
Quartz: 9.5 & 6.10
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
What do you mean "no propellant coming out the back except heat"? Heat is a property of matter, not a substance. Do you mean thermal radiation? To dissipate the entire mass as radiation, you would need half of it to be antimatter, and if you directed that energy straight out the back you would get a lot of momentum out of it, enough to be moving at a fraction of light speed I believe.
The step where a battery feeds in a new mass sounds like magic to me. Where does this new mass come from? If it is coming from the battery, then the battery must start with mass greater than M and it loses mass M in creating that mass. And assuming the battery is attached to the cylinder to begin with you then have to go back and redo the original calculations accounting for that, and don't forget to add in the effect of moving that mass around as well.
I am not sure why you posted that link, but it talks about several subtle concepts, and has some intermediate conclusions that it later explains the issues with. Anything short of reading the whole thing will give you an incorrect impression. My attempt to summarize the conclusion of it is that mass of fundamental particles that are charged is in part due to the electromagnetic potential energy, but not entirely, and we don't know if there is a way to tell the difference or if it matters. (The specifics are more subtle than this, but you have to read the whole thing to get it.) Nothing in it changes what I said above about the mass having to already be in the mass of the battery, if the battery creates the mass.
Okay, so replace battery with a Solar Panel of negligible mass.
Do you understand a Capacitor gains weight when it is charged? If so, an Electric field contributes to its inertial mass. The EM Drive uses the inertial mass of the EM field inside it.
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He got the Helical antenna right on. (one a NSFer did for me by 3D printing July 2015)
Saphire is a great thermal conductor and has a High dielectric constant (9.39 from 1.0 MHz to 8.5 GHz) a nice pick.
Shell
But according to the patent application, the sapphire is strictly a substrate for the superconductor. It never sees the EM field due to the YBCO film. If the idea was to have a thermally stable substrate, quartz would have been a better (and certainly less expensive) choice. Additionally, the lattice mismatch between single crystal sapphire (Al2O3) and YBCO is pretty severe. Not a good choice.
Good points rq3, but the mismatches on the Sapphire lattice depend on how the Sapphire and YCBO are bonded. Remember chips are made SoS (Silicone on Sapphire)
http://www.mt-berlin.com/frames_cryst/descriptions/sapphire.htm
My company extensively researched SOS and other uses for Sapphire as we were separating the dies with our equipment (10x faster than sawing or scribing). Even found a 100mm sapphire wafer we die separated on my old file system. (attached)
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He wanted to "Trek" it out with some transparent aluminum. ;D
-
Looks like saphire has better thermal conductivity than quartz.
W/(m x K) at 300K:
Saphire: 23.1 parallel to optical axis, 25.2 perpendicular to optical axis
Quartz: 9.5 & 6.10
There are many materials that have better thermal conductivity than quartz. So why sapphire, since it cannot enter into the operation of the device other than add expense. Since Roger has finally seen fit to phase lock the exciter to the cavity, the phase locked loop will correct for any thermal perturbation of the large end. It could be constructed of copper, or even silver if thermal conductivity is important. And it IS important, since the substrate must keep the YBCO cool enough to superconduct.
The catadioptric small end (if that is indeed what it is) is a fascinating twist, too. Some nasty diamond turning under CNC will likely be needed to fabricate that! The whole thing looks like a "look what I could do if only I had the funding" effort.
I eagerly await peer reviewed thrust results while battery powered under hard vacuum (<1.0x10-6 torr).
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He got the Helical antenna right on. (one a NSFer did for me by 3D printing July 2015)
Saphire is a great thermal conductor and has a High dielectric constant (9.39 from 1.0 MHz to 8.5 GHz) a nice pick.
Shell
But according to the patent application, the sapphire is strictly a substrate for the superconductor. It never sees the EM field due to the YBCO film. If the idea was to have a thermally stable substrate, quartz would have been a better (and certainly less expensive) choice. Additionally, the lattice mismatch between single crystal sapphire (Al2O3) and YBCO is pretty severe. Not a good choice.
Good points rq3, but the mismatches on the Sapphire lattice depend on how the Sapphire and YCBO are bonded. Remember chips are made SoS (Silicone on Sapphire)
http://www.mt-berlin.com/frames_cryst/descriptions/sapphire.htm
My company extensively researched SOS and other uses for Sapphire as we were separating the dies with our equipment (10x faster than sawing or scribing). Even found a 100mm sapphire wafer we die separated on my old file system. (attached)
SOME chips are silicon on sapphire, IF the lattice match is correct. YBCO is basically a sintered ceramic. It's a real beast to get it to match to anything, let alone Al2O3.
-
Just noticed the dual cavity setup to achieve "constant thrust"...
So basically, if I'm allowed for some humor, this is the electromagnetic version of a pulsejet, using 2 alternating pulsed EMdrives?
a Buzzbomb mark III ? ;D
-
Interesting stats:
http://flyhalo.com/parajet-paramotors-volution-custom-line-up/
ParaJet backpack motor thrust: 50kg (500N)
EmDrive with specific force 500N/kW would need 1kW of Rf to drive the ParaGlider. A small Lithium Ion battery pack could easily provide the energy for many hours of silent fight. Plus of course a small tank of liquid Nitrogen to cool the big end plate of the EmDrive thruster.
I did hang gliding years ago and would be eager to put on a ParaJet EmDrive back pack and go for a fly.
Of course not a space drive but could easily become one.
-
Looks like saphire has better thermal conductivity than quartz.
W/(m x K) at 300K:
Saphire: 23.1 parallel to optical axis, 25.2 perpendicular to optical axis
Quartz: 9.5 & 6.10
There are many materials that have better thermal conductivity than quartz. So why sapphire, since it cannot enter into the operation of the device other than add expense. Since Roger has finally seen fit to phase lock the exciter to the cavity, the phase locked loop will correct for any thermal perturbation of the large end. It could be constructed of copper, or even silver if thermal conductivity is important. And it IS important, since the substrate must keep the YBCO cool enough to superconduct.
The catadioptric small end (if that is indeed what it is) is a fascinating twist, too. Some nasty diamond turning under CNC will likely be needed to fabricate that! The whole thing looks like a "look what I could do if only I had the funding" effort.
I eagerly await peer reviewed thrust results while battery powered under hard vacuum (<1.0x10-6 torr).
pointed to that "it 'd work if only I'd funding" few minutes ago, but nobody noticed :(
-
Just noticed the dual cavity setup to achieve "constant thrust"...
So basically, if I'm allowed for some humor, this is the electromagnetic version of a pulsejet, using 2 alternating pulsed EMdrives?
a Buzzbomb mark III ? ;D
All of Roger's cryo designs used multiple EmDrive, driven by short Rf pulses. So nothing new here.
-
The whole thing looks like a "look what I could do if only I had the funding" effort.
I eagerly await peer reviewed thrust results while battery powered under hard vacuum (<1.0x10-6 torr).
You missed the Universal Propulsion Ltd JV with Gilo Industries? Plenty of money there.
I suspect this EmDrive was built some time ago as to me the design screams this is a real device. Also suspect this IP is removed from any IP SPR shared with Boeing.
-
This is making my brain hurt. :o I may actually need some caffeine to get this modeled correctly.
"The shape of the minor end plate (curve FAH) is designed to ensure that the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH are equal. In addition, any path length, represented by DG in figure 2 must also be equal to the outer and axial path lengths. This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH. The resulting curve shape FGA is shown in figure 3, where a typical result of such an analysis is given. A mirror image of this curve gives the curve AH and thus the complete concave shape of the minor end plate can be machined."
-
There are many materials that have better thermal conductivity than quartz. So why sapphire, since it cannot enter into the operation of the device other than add expense. Since Roger has finally seen fit to phase lock the exciter to the cavity, the phase locked loop will correct for any thermal perturbation of the large end. It could be constructed of copper, or even silver if thermal conductivity is important. And it IS important, since the substrate must keep the YBCO cool enough to superconduct.
The catadioptric small end (if that is indeed what it is) is a fascinating twist, too. Some nasty diamond turning under CNC will likely be needed to fabricate that! The whole thing looks like a "look what I could do if only I had the funding" effort.
I eagerly await peer reviewed thrust results while battery powered under hard vacuum (<1.0x10-6 torr).
pointed to that "it 'd work if only I'd funding" few minutes ago, but nobody noticed :(
Snipped. I do not want to involve in arguments.
-
This is making my brain hurt. :o I may actually need some caffeine to get this modeled correctly.
"The shape of the minor end plate (curve FAH) is designed to ensure that the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH are equal. In addition, any path length, represented by DG in figure 2 must also be equal to the outer and axial path lengths. This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH. The resulting curve shape FGA is shown in figure 3, where a typical result of such an analysis is given. A mirror image of this curve gives the curve AH and thus the complete concave shape of the minor end plate can be machined."
I would assume the mode is still TE01x as we still need to eliminate eddy currents that flow from end plate to side wall. Please note the small end plate does move back and forth to retune the cavity to accelerative doppler shifts in the dual travelling waves. Likewise the big end plate attaches to the side wall and as in the small end plate, there should not be any eddy currents flowing across the physical joint from the superconducting big end plate to the side walls.
-
There are many materials that have better thermal conductivity than quartz. So why sapphire, since it cannot enter into the operation of the device other than add expense. Since Roger has finally seen fit to phase lock the exciter to the cavity, the phase locked loop will correct for any thermal perturbation of the large end. It could be constructed of copper, or even silver if thermal conductivity is important. And it IS important, since the substrate must keep the YBCO cool enough to superconduct.
The catadioptric small end (if that is indeed what it is) is a fascinating twist, too. Some nasty diamond turning under CNC will likely be needed to fabricate that! The whole thing looks like a "look what I could do if only I had the funding" effort.
I eagerly await peer reviewed thrust results while battery powered under hard vacuum (<1.0x10-6 torr).
pointed to that "it 'd work if only I'd funding" few minutes ago, but nobody noticed :(
It is sad to see Mr. Shawyer to shift from honest mistake to aligning himself to Cannae.
So this new patent and the new JV makes you feel threatened that Roger and his JV partner will bring a flying EmDrive to the market?
-
FEKO can compute the resonant freq of a frustum in say TE013 mode.
Excel modeling the frystum as a large number of small length connected cylinder sections yields the guide wavelength for each section per the excited mode & freq. Integrating them yields the average guide wavelength for the frustum. Then for say TE013 mode, calculating the resonance agrees very closely to the FEKO value thus showing using conventional microwave waveguide theory can be used to calculate guide wavelength at any point of the frustum.
Physical definition of guide wavelength in a waveguide is the distance between surfaces of constant phase. In a resonating cavity this definition does not apply, because the entire volume has the same phase. What you have provided, yet again is a method of calculating, without defining what you are calculating.
As for the resonance calculation, you have given an approximate method, but that does not mean that it is exact.
The drop in EmWave momentum from the big to small end is not linear, so you can't just add up the axial side wall forces plus small end plate force and assume it equals big end plate force.
Who said the force on the sidewalls was linear?
It is actually quite complicated as shown by Egan here. (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) And this shows it is not just an assumption, they really do add up to 0.
And I know all of your complaints about that derivation, none of which are valid. So before you start on that, provide a frustum shape that experimentally does not resonate where those equations predict. Alternatively, provide a set of dimensions (with spherical end plates) and I can run the numbers and show that it matches with FEKO.
BTW with a constant diameter waveguide, such as used by Cullen, how can there be axial side wall forces that caused the reduction in end plate radiation pressure? What Cullen discovered was the end plate radiation pressure drops as per (external wavelength / guide wavelength) * conventional radiation pressure equation.
Why would there be axial side wall forces? the momentum is not changing as it propagates down the waveguide. Depending on the injection method, there would be forces on the antenna or waveguide entrance that bends the path of some of the energy to match the waveguide constraint, and possibly reflections as well.
At this site (http://electriciantraining.tpub.com/14183/css/Energy-Propagation-In-Waveguides-Continued-33.htm) you can see diagrams of how the light in a waveguide effectively is superimposed waves travelling at angles and continually reflecting off the walls. Since the momentum not parallel to the primary direction of travel, the apparent momentum is less, although if you measured it (which would be a very difficult experiment), you would see the non-axial momentum in show up as forces on the sidewalls. (of course, this force is normal to the walls. If you picture something similar for the emDrive, it is clear how reflections from the angled sidewalls would change the amount of axial momentum in the photons, but at the same time generate an axial force component on the sidewalls. Also, the amount of axial momentum change obviously changes as you approach the small end, because the angle of reflection will be different due the the previous reflections.
Here is a thought experiment for you. Take a resonant frustum, extend each end with a 1/4 wave length extension that matches the frustum end diameter, has constant diameter and has an end plate. Would you agree that the radiation pressure at end end plate should agree with Cullen's equations?
Possibly true, but nowhere near trivial to show, since the change in boundary conditions could cause some additional energy to be reflected before entering the straight section, and would certainly change the resonance frequency.
Would you agree that Cullen's equation will not show a linear decrease in end plate radiation as the diameter is altered?
Again, this is irrelevant, I never claimed the force on the sidewalls was linear.
None of this changes that even if you ignore the force on the sidewalls, you are rejecting F=M*a by claiming the cavity will move in the opposite direction of the applied force.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Shawyer's theory is inconsistent with both itself and with his own experiments?
-
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Shawyer's theory is inconsistent with both itself and with his own experiments?
Well that is the issue because it is not.
BTW it is possible to measure both the thrust force (small to big) generated by the radiation pressure difference and then using a different test setup to measure the reaction force (big to small) generated to oppose the differential radiation pressure generated (small to big) thrust force.
So you see the physical experimental data matches what Roger's theory says should be generated. Plus experimental rotary table acceleration data shows constant acceleration with constant input power.
Which basically says what you believe to be correct theory is not.
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
What do you mean "no propellant coming out the back except heat"? Heat is a property of matter, not a substance. Do you mean thermal radiation? To dissipate the entire mass as radiation, you would need half of it to be antimatter, and if you directed that energy straight out the back you would get a lot of momentum out of it, enough to be moving at a fraction of light speed I believe.
The step where a battery feeds in a new mass sounds like magic to me. Where does this new mass come from? If it is coming from the battery, then the battery must start with mass greater than M and it loses mass M in creating that mass. And assuming the battery is attached to the cylinder to begin with you then have to go back and redo the original calculations accounting for that, and don't forget to add in the effect of moving that mass around as well.
I am not sure why you posted that link, but it talks about several subtle concepts, and has some intermediate conclusions that it later explains the issues with. Anything short of reading the whole thing will give you an incorrect impression. My attempt to summarize the conclusion of it is that mass of fundamental particles that are charged is in part due to the electromagnetic potential energy, but not entirely, and we don't know if there is a way to tell the difference or if it matters. (The specifics are more subtle than this, but you have to read the whole thing to get it.) Nothing in it changes what I said above about the mass having to already be in the mass of the battery, if the battery creates the mass.
Okay, so replace battery with a Solar Panel of negligible mass.
Do you understand a Capacitor gains weight when it is charged? If so, an Electric field contributes to its inertial mass. The EM Drive uses the inertial mass of the EM field inside it.
You ignored most of my post. Please start at the beginning, where I asked a question that is kind of important to understanding what you are talking about.
Anyway, adding enough energy through a solar panel (Assuming uniform illumination, and a panel that wraps around the object so there is no net momentum added, and that the cylinder is now at rest, so you don't have to worry about its velocity changing do to the added mass). This would be an absurd amount of energy to generate meaningful mass, and would be more effective to channel it into a laser pointed out the back.
For the capacitor gaining weight as it is charged, that has to do with E = mc^2 and the additional potential energy in the electrons adds to their mass. The fields themselves don't have inertial mass. Their is no distinguishable difference of the electromagnetically derived portion of an electrons mass from the rest of it, this is part of the conclusion from that link you posted.
So to illustrate what you seem to be saying in a simpler example (because there is nothing special about the electromagnetic mass), It is like saying after the initial motion, someone external to the system pulls out the movable mass (through a slot in the side or something) and then inserts a new one on the other side. (or just moves the original one forward, because why not) This effective work done by the external person is meaningful. And if you want this to be useful, you have to explain where all of this mass is coming from, and if energy is being moved internally, you are also shifting mass, because E = mc^2 (and even massless particles still have momentum, so shifting them isn't free either.)
-
Physical definition of guide wavelength in a waveguide is the distance between surfaces of constant phase. In a resonating cavity this definition does not apply, because the entire volume has the same phase.
You really believe that? Bolding is mine.
-
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Shawyer's theory is inconsistent with both itself and with his own experiments?
Well that is the issue because it is not.
BTW it is possible to measure both the thrust force (small to big) generated by the radiation pressure difference and then using a different test setup to measure the reaction force (big to small) generated to oppose the differential radiation pressure generated (small to big) thrust force.
So you see the physical experimental data matches what Roger's theory says should be generated. Plus experimental rotary table acceleration data shows constant acceleration with constant input power.
Which basically says what you believe to be correct theory is not.
Others have covered issues with the rotary table.
Let me break this down as simple as possible:
1. Force on the large end of the cavity is pointed from the small end to the large end.
2. Force on the small end of the cavity is pointed from the large end to the small end.
3. Force on the large end of the cavity is larger than on the small end.
4. Therefore, the net force on the cavity it towards the large end (assuming no sidewall force)
5. Using only F=m*a, this means the cavity moves in the direction of the large end.
Specifically which of these points is wrong? 1-3 come from Shawyer, 4 is simply addition (i.e. -7+12 = 5) with the no sidewalls force assumption from Shawyer and 5 is F=m*a.
Shawyer's own experiments therefore disprove his theory.
-
I note five things in Shaywer's new patent that are blindingly obvious:
1- New end shapes: While the cavity is still a truncated cone, the big end plate is flat, undoubtedly because a crystal substrate and a superconducting film glued together are much easier to build as a flat surface instead of a spherical one, Shawyer claiming:
A cavity geometry which enables the major end plate to be flat, and thus simplifies the manufacturing process.
and the small end plate is spherically shaped. But instead of being convex (from the point of view of the frustum interior) like Shawyer's previous patents, Boeing's Flight Thruster or Tajmar's test cavity, so travelling waves are kept orthogonal to the side wall everywhere, the small end plate is concave, this time focusing waves towards the center of the big end plate. This inverted EM focusing shape may be some trade-off because of the cheaper and easier to build flat end plate. Shawyer writes:
A tapered, circular section, microwave cavity with a flat major end plate, whose concave shape is calculated to minimise the variation in path length across the waveform of the propagated electromagnetic wave. This shaped minor end plate and flat major end plate enable a high Q value to be achieved by minimising the phase distortion across the wavefront.
and:
A minor end plate with a curved shape such that the path length of the propagated wave within the thruster cavity is equal for all radial points on the wavefront.
[EDIT: same explanation from TheTraveller (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598046#msg1598046)]
2- The thick single crystal sapphire substrate on the big flat end plate, with a thin YBCO superconducting thin film glued on top of it. What is its purpose? Is it there because it is a dielectric, or because it can hold the YBCO superconducting thin film in place and transfer the cold of the cooling cryogenic liquid to it? [EDIT: a clue from Monomorphic (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598055#msg1598055)]
3- The thrust plate. Shawyer writes:
The liquid gas cooler 7 is fixed to a thrust plate 11 via a thermal insulator 10. Thrust is generated in the direction of minor end plate towards major end plate and is transmitted to the spacecraft or airborne vehicle via the thrust plate 11. In the position shown in figure 1 the trust is therefore vertically downards, resulting in an acceleration of the spacecraft or airborne vehicle vertically upwards. This is a result of Newton's third law of motion.
This has already been debated many times but I still don't understand Shawyer's concept of "thrust". He always speak of thrust direction being opposite to the direction of acceleration, like the exhaust gas of a rocket, except in the EmDrive there is nothing ejected. This new "thrust plate" reminds me of a pop-up toy head with a spring mechanism hidden inside a box. If you are set upright a skateboard holding such a popup toy, and you decide to release the spring mechanism to let the head pop out of the box, you won't move. Even if you shout "NEWTON'S LAW!" when pressing the red button.
4- A helical circularly polarised input antenna mounted in the center axis near the small shaped end plate, as SeaShells pointed out (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598041#msg1598041).
5- Electrically asymmetric end conductors: the curved small end is non-superconducting, while the flat big end is superconducting. So Shawyer's newest partially superconducting EmDrive is in total contradiction with Todd's (WarpTech's) idea about maximising power dissipation at the big end and minimising it at the small end. According to his theory, Todd recommends to make the small end superconducting to prevent thermal loss, and the big end very thermally conductive, for example painting its exterior in black and covering it with heatsink fins. Something's gotta give.
I edited Shawyer's main drawing to add text captions to each number, attached.
[EDIT: So many post is so little time, I had to check back the three last pages to see if any of my questions has been answered in the meanwhile]
-
This has already been debated many times but I still don't understand Shawyer's concept of "thrust".
Thrust is a force direction small to big
Reaction is a force direction big to small.
With the appropriate test setup, it is possible to measure both the primary Thrust force generated internally by the difference in the end plate radiation pressure and the Reaction force generated externally on the frustum in opposition to the internal Thrust force.
In the patent the internal Thrust force is down and the external Reaction force is up.
As attached.
-
TT, I understand the scheme, except thrust has to be something which is expelled out of the back of the vehicle and left behind. If you expel or transmit momentum to something that is attached to the vehicle, it won't move. I gave the example of the pop-up head toy on a skateboard, but you can take balls if you want: you can gently propel a boat if you throw many tennis balls towards the shore while being onboard, but it won't work with the attached ball of a jokari. Shawyer's thrust plate is the same as the attached ball of the jokari.
-
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Shawyer's theory is inconsistent with both itself and with his own experiments?
Well that is the issue because it is not.
BTW it is possible to measure both the thrust force (small to big) generated by the radiation pressure difference and then using a different test setup to measure the reaction force (big to small) generated to oppose the differential radiation pressure generated (small to big) thrust force.
So you see the physical experimental data matches what Roger's theory says should be generated. Plus experimental rotary table acceleration data shows constant acceleration with constant input power.
Which basically says what you believe to be correct theory is not.
Others have covered issues with the rotary table.
Let me break this down as simple as possible:
1. Force on the large end of the cavity is pointed from the small end to the large end.
2. Force on the small end of the cavity is pointed from the large end to the small end.
3. Force on the large end of the cavity is larger than on the small end.
4. Therefore, the net force on the cavity it towards the large end (assuming no sidewall force)
5. Using only F=m*a, this means the cavity moves in the direction of the large end.
Specifically which of these points is wrong? 1-3 come from Shawyer, 4 is simply addition (i.e. -7+12 = 5) with the no sidewalls force assumption from Shawyer and 5 is F=m*a.
Shawyer's own experiments therefore disprove his theory.
All forces have a "action force" and a matching equal but opposite "reaction force".
For the EmDrive, the Thrust force is the internal end plate differential "action force" (Small to Big) and the external Reaction force that accelerates the frustum is the opposite but equal "reaction force" (Big to Small).
-
TT, I understand the scheme, except thrust has to be something which is expelled out of the back of the vehicle and left behind. If you expel or transmit momentum to something that is attached to the vehicle, it won't move. I gave the example of the pop-up head toy on a skateboard, but you can take balls if you want: you can gently propel a boat if you throw many tennis balls towards the shore while being onboard, but it won't work with the attached ball of a jokari. Shawyer's thrust plate is the same as the attached ball of the jokari.
The internal EmWave undergoes momentum change as the guide wavelength varies, caused by diameter change.
Nothing needs to be exhausted. This is a new way to exchange momentum between internal EmWave and the external frustum. The frustum gained momentum is sourced from the EmWave and causes it to red shift, reflecting its lower momentum and upon each end plate reflection to grow progressively longer.
In your ball example or the flashlight example, the momentum exchange at each end is the same, so there is no movement. However thanks to the changing waveguide diameter, the EmWave grows longer and shorter depending on where it is in the frustum. This is the special effect that most miss.
Imagine a ball bouncing from end to end and at the big end it had more momentum to transfer and at the small end it had less momentum to transfer. Ok that is outside most folks experience but it is what happens to the EmWave.
That end plate force differential is what Roger calls the Thrust force and with the right test setup it can be measured. However it will not accelerate a EmDrive as you can't have a one sided force and so the EmDrive moves in the opposite way as a equal but opposite Reaction force to the Thrust force.
Ok again this is outside the way we see the world but that does not mean it can't work like that.
As Roger says, the engineering principles behind the EmDrive have been known for 65 years.
From the patent:
Thrust is generated in the direction of minor end plate towards major end plate and is transmitted to the spacecraft or airborne vehicle via the thrust plate 11.
In the position shown in figure 1 the thrust is therefore vertically downwards, resulting in an acceleration of the spacecraft or airborne vehicle vertically upwards.
This reaction is a result of Newton's third law of motion.
-
Here's a thought experiment:
Consider a horizontal cylinder of length L, in free space, zero-g.
At each end of the cylinder is a mass M, which is large compared to the mass of the cylinder.
The mass on the left is firmly fixed to the end of the cylinder.
The mass on the right starts at the far right, but is free to float around in the cylinder.
If no external forces act on the system, the only force will be the gravitational attraction between the two masses. After a time, the two masses will accelerate toward each other, and eventually both will be in contact at the left end of the cylinder. Assuming the CM did not move... From the outside, it appears that the cylinder has accelerated and moved a distance L/2 to the right. Then stops, when the two masses meet and their momentum cancels out.
Consider the possibility that after some time, the movable mass M is dissipated as heat, into a heatsink on the left. Imagine a battery that feeds in a new mass M on the right side that is free to move in the cylinder. This is possible when using electromagnetic mass and it's momentum when injected is irrelevant. It just adds to the total mass.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)
REPEAT ad nausea...
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved, and there is no propellant coming out the back except heat. It uses gravity to move itself. No fancy stuff, just gravitational attraction of one mass toward another, and a loss of mass though random heat exchange. Who disagrees with this and why?
Todd
What do you mean "no propellant coming out the back except heat"? Heat is a property of matter, not a substance. Do you mean thermal radiation? To dissipate the entire mass as radiation, you would need half of it to be antimatter, and if you directed that energy straight out the back you would get a lot of momentum out of it, enough to be moving at a fraction of light speed I believe.
The step where a battery feeds in a new mass sounds like magic to me. Where does this new mass come from? If it is coming from the battery, then the battery must start with mass greater than M and it loses mass M in creating that mass. And assuming the battery is attached to the cylinder to begin with you then have to go back and redo the original calculations accounting for that, and don't forget to add in the effect of moving that mass around as well.
I am not sure why you posted that link, but it talks about several subtle concepts, and has some intermediate conclusions that it later explains the issues with. Anything short of reading the whole thing will give you an incorrect impression. My attempt to summarize the conclusion of it is that mass of fundamental particles that are charged is in part due to the electromagnetic potential energy, but not entirely, and we don't know if there is a way to tell the difference or if it matters. (The specifics are more subtle than this, but you have to read the whole thing to get it.) Nothing in it changes what I said above about the mass having to already be in the mass of the battery, if the battery creates the mass.
Okay, so replace battery with a Solar Panel of negligible mass.
Do you understand a Capacitor gains weight when it is charged? If so, an Electric field contributes to its inertial mass. The EM Drive uses the inertial mass of the EM field inside it.
You ignored most of my post. Please start at the beginning, where I asked a question that is kind of important to understanding what you are talking about.
Anyway, adding enough energy through a solar panel (Assuming uniform illumination, and a panel that wraps around the object so there is no net momentum added, and that the cylinder is now at rest, so you don't have to worry about its velocity changing do to the added mass). This would be an absurd amount of energy to generate meaningful mass, and would be more effective to channel it into a laser pointed out the back.
For the capacitor gaining weight as it is charged, that has to do with E = mc^2 and the additional potential energy in the electrons adds to their mass. The fields themselves don't have inertial mass. Their is no distinguishable difference of the electromagnetically derived portion of an electrons mass from the rest of it, this is part of the conclusion from that link you posted.
So to illustrate what you seem to be saying in a simpler example (because there is nothing special about the electromagnetic mass), It is like saying after the initial motion, someone external to the system pulls out the movable mass (through a slot in the side or something) and then inserts a new one on the other side. (or just moves the original one forward, because why not) This effective work done by the external person is meaningful. And if you want this to be useful, you have to explain where all of this mass is coming from, and if energy is being moved internally, you are also shifting mass, because E = mc^2 (and even massless particles still have momentum, so shifting them isn't free either.)
Hey, don't be so serious! I don't do anything except make jokes before I have my morning coffee. :) There's nothing worse that waking up grumpy in the morning.
1. I used heat as an example of a process where dissipation will produce random momentum vectors, such that there will be no NET momentum from the heat escaping. Antimatter is not required.
2. Posting the link to EM Mass, probably wasn't the best link to post. I disagree, where you say a source-free EM field has no mass. It has nothing to do with the mass of the electrons changing. The free field has no "rest" mass, but it possesses inertia and an equivalent inertial mass, and it can be attracted by gravity, otherwise light would not be bent when passing a massive star.
3. Regarding your last para. as a "simpler example". Imagine that after the two masses are in contact at the left end and the person outside has removed the mass through the side. That "like the EM Drive" there is no gravitational field outside the cylinder. Or, for example, we "switch off" the gravity of the mass on the left end. Then, the person on the outside is free to move the moveable mass back to the right without increasing it's relative potential energy. The amount of work required is not equal to what was gained previously. He can insert it back into the right-end of the cylinder and then "switch on" the gravity of the left mass to start the process over.
In the case of my EM Drive Theory, the g-field is only "inside" the frustum. it doesn't extend outside it because the frequency & bandwidth is too low to pass through the copper, unlike natural gravitational fields that have such high frequency and bandwidth that it passes right through matter. Therefore, rearranging mass outside the frustum has no potential energy to overcome. It's only after the mass is inside the frustum, that it "feels" the g-field.
-
This new "Bell" shaped geometry is much more difficult to model than the concave-convex geometry. This is completely because of the iteration steps for the minor end plate shape. It turns out it is not a perfect spherical radius, but more pinched (parabolic) towards the top.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
I don't get your last paragraph. Even Shwayer talks about static forces in test rigs as well as non accelerating lifting devices for cars and lifting spacecraft to GEO. I think an EmDrive is like a rocket with an inexhaustible fuel source where the mass doesn't change.
-
I've always considered a phenomenon known as Lenz's Law (induced eddy currents) and evanescent wave actions to be a prime contender in the thrust anomaly. The magnetic fields induced (Lentz Law) in the metal of the sidewalls of the frustum creating counter EM fields, coupled with evanescent wave action decay could account for a thrust potential within the cavity and also make it a non-enclosed drive as energy can escape). They also can account for the Jerk actions seen by me and other DYIers even EW upto and including some Mach Effects. These actions within the drive would have to be pulsed driven to work more effectively.
When Dr. Montillet gave his skype presentation at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop I was excited someone else had seen some of the same actions I was thinking of and had the tools to put it to a theory on the EMD actions.
Anyone remember when I wanted to call my first build "Crazy Eddie Drive". Some thought it was for Crazy Eddie in the SciFi book "The Mote in God's Eye". It was for the Eddy currents TBH and a play on words. ;)
My Best...
Shell
PS: I'm still digging through the math on this paper as it is a little above my pay grade, although you can always learn.
Multiplicity of Solutions for Linear Partial
Dierential Equations Using (Generalized) Energy
Operators
September 11, 2015
J.-P. Montillet,
Conclusions
The core of this work is to de ne the notion of multiplicity of the solutions
of a linear PDE using the model associated with energy spaces and the (gen-
eralized) energy operators. In this way, it contradicts the classical way of
solving a nominated PDE with boundaries conditions, but it rather focuses
on additional solutions from these energy spaces. The multiplicity is de ned
through Theorem 2 and the Corollary 1. The work shows how the energy
operators (and generalized energy operators) can determine which energy
subspace is reduced to f0g.
The theory is then applied to the evanescent waves, a special type of solu-
tions of the wave equation. The last part with the closed waveguide shows
a possible real world application and opens some possible understanding of
what is happening in the EMD engine with the de nition of duplication of
waves. In this case, the duplication of waves is when additional solutions
should be taken into account due to the level of energy increasing in the cav-
ity. However, this work remains at a theoretical level and more work with
simulations are required to fully understand the concept of duplication.
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
Then you'd get there slower. You're just borrowing energy from the "propellant" and using it to charge your battery at the expense of a much slower trip. Summing up all energies would still yield the input energy.
I'm not going anywhere, I'm trying to generate free energy. My scheme would give more than 0.5 GJ per iteration.
I know you are trying to prove the EmDrive doesn't work with this thought experiment but I assume you are thinking of a rotating device?
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
I don't get your last paragraph. Even Shwayer talks about static forces in test rigs as well as non accelerating lifting devices for cars and lifting spacecraft to GEO. I think an EmDrive is like a rocket with an inexhaustible fuel source where the mass doesn't change.
Static Force measurement is of the primary end plate radiation pressure derived Thrust force. The only way to measure the equal but opposite Reaction force that I know of requires the EmDrive to be able to freely accelerate.
Levitation requires acceleration of the levitated mass at 1g. So even though it may not move, to the EmDrive it is accelerating the mass at 1g.
-
This new "Bell" shaped geometry is much more difficult to model than the concave-convex geometry. This is completely because of the iteration steps for the minor end plate shape. It turns out it is not a perfect spherical radius, but more pinched (parabolic) towards the top.
The small end plate shape corrects the phase distortion introduced by the simple and low cost to make flat end plate. It works like a distortion correction lens or reflector in an optical system.
I'll be impressed if FEKO can model this frustum.
-
This new "Bell" shaped geometry is much more difficult to model than the concave-convex geometry. This is completely because of the iteration steps for the minor end plate shape. It turns out it is not a perfect spherical radius, but more pinched (parabolic) towards the top.
Ah! Parabolic is what it's supposed to be! I was always perplexed why he used spherical. For instance, we use a parabolic antenna dish, not spherical antenna dish to maximize signal strength.
-
This new "Bell" shaped geometry is much more difficult to model than the concave-convex geometry. This is completely because of the iteration steps for the minor end plate shape. It turns out it is not a perfect spherical radius, but more pinched (parabolic) towards the top.
Ah! Parabolic is what it's supposed to be! I was always perplexed why he used spherical. For instance, we use a parabolic antenna dish, not spherical antenna dish to maximize signal strength.
Roger used spherical end plates, as in that frustum configuration the travelling waves have a spherical wave front, which to reflect with no phase distortion, requires the reflecting surface to be spherical to match that of the incoming wave.
I doubt the small end plate curve is a parabola.
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
Have you pre-decided that the NASA results upcoming in December are not real evidence?
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
Then you'd get there slower. You're just borrowing energy from the "propellant" and using it to charge your battery at the expense of a much slower trip. Summing up all energies would still yield the input energy.
I'm not going anywhere, I'm trying to generate free energy. My scheme would give more than 0.5 GJ per iteration.
I know you are trying to prove the EmDrive doesn't work with this thought experiment but I assume you are thinking of a rotating device?
Not necessarily. I could just accelerate in straight line until the battery is empty and then break to a standstill (in the original reference frame where the device started at rest), harvesting a part of the kinetic energy during braking so that I'd get enough energy to recharge the battery and some extra.
-
That end plate force differential is what Roger calls the Thrust force and with the right test setup it can be measured. However it will not accelerate a EmDrive as you can't have a one sided force and so the EmDrive moves in the opposite way as a equal but opposite Reaction force to the Thrust force.
Ok again this is outside the way we see the world but that does not mean it can't work like that.
Well, I can't help but wonder, why go with an "explanation" that really is "outside the way we see the world" as opposed to a number of alternative explanations that aren't?
-
I doubt the small end plate curve is a parabola.
If you follow this you get a curve that is not a perfect radius:
"This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH."
-
I doubt the small end plate curve is a parabola.
If you follow this you get a curve that is not a perfect radius:
"This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH."
The lower image curve and the CG radius distance vs angle should give us what we need to determine the other dimensions.
BTW the centre and the side wall edge radius CA & CF are the same at 266.76mm
-
The question makes perfect sense but one needs to assume a power for the battery. If it's drained at 300kw it can last 3333 seconds which is the same for all observers. The forces 1000N and the acceleration is 1 m/s^2 so and the final velocity is 3.333km/s. This is the same for any assumed power drain but the time will be longer or shorter. Note that simply equating the 1E9J to kinetic energy in the starting frame gives only 1.41km/s. This shows the apparent CoE violation we are debating.
Ok. But what if we harvest 50% of the kinetic energy (with some engineering solution that I will here handwave away), use 1.5 GJ of that more than 2 GJ to recharge the battery to 1 GJ (that extra 50% is to account for inefficiencies) and repeat. What, if anything, stops us from doing that?
Then you'd get there slower. You're just borrowing energy from the "propellant" and using it to charge your battery at the expense of a much slower trip. Summing up all energies would still yield the input energy.
I'm not going anywhere, I'm trying to generate free energy. My scheme would give more than 0.5 GJ per iteration.
I know you are trying to prove the EmDrive doesn't work with this thought experiment but I assume you are thinking of a rotating device?
Not necessarily. I could just accelerate in straight line until the battery is empty and then break to a standstill (in the original reference frame where the device started at rest), harvesting a part of the kinetic energy during braking so that I'd get enough energy to recharge the battery and some extra.
Your system may work but the extra energy that you consider to be free may indeed be free to you but it comes at the expense of something else. It's coming from the reduction of kinetic energy of the exhaust of the system, whatever form that takes. Think of it like a transducer that use a small amount of energy to separate and rearrange two bigger piles of energy. In physics language, you are breaking a symmetry. Universally, energy and momentum are both conserved. A waterfall is "free" energy too. You are basically creating an energy waterfall.
-
Your system may work but the extra energy that you consider to be free may indeed be free to you but it comes at the expense of something else. It's coming from the reduction of kinetic energy of the exhaust of the system, whatever form that takes. Think of it like a transducer that use a small amount of energy to separate and rearrange two bigger piles of energy. In physics language, you are breaking a symmetry. Universally, energy and momentum are both conserved. A waterfall is "free" energy too. You are basically creating an energy waterfall.
So you're saying that EMDrive works around conservation laws by interacting with... something. Well, that is hard to refute. I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
OK, let me try to rephrase... I find the explanation that "the apparent thrust observed in the tests that have been conducted so far is attributed to some natural error factor that has not yet been taken into account properly" a lot more plausible.
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
OK, let me try to rephrase... I find the explanation that "the apparent thrust observed in the tests that have been conducted so far is attributed to some natural error factor that has not yet been taken into account properly" a lot more plausible.
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
-
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Nope. For upper stage, the "final kinetic energy equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat" formula is still true. You just need to take into account that the "total kinetic energy gained by the propellant" will be negative since it will be losing kinetic energy instead of gaining it (the upper stage is "slowing down" the propellant, thus reducing its kinetic energy).
This has nothing to do with the upper stage specifically, but with choosing a different inertial reference frame for calculations. If you choose a frame that is moving at a high speed relative to the rocket when the fuel starts burning (let's say it's moving in the opposite direction), the propellant will already have a lot of kinetic energy. However, once the fuel starts burning, the rocket will start gaining kinetic energy, but the propellant will start losing kinetic energy. If you run the math, the result is the same in any inertial frame.
-
Doesn't matter if something appears to work and isn't explained as to how it works. Something is there.
However, until one can prove what things work to the degree that they do ... conclusively, through all attempts to disclaim ... the discussion remains open as to the net meaning of it. Incomplete at best, totally false at worst.
So its wrong to both dismiss as it is to accept at this time.
Everyone wants to rush to conclusions. You can't.
-
Your system may work but the extra energy that you consider to be free may indeed be free to you but it comes at the expense of something else. It's coming from the reduction of kinetic energy of the exhaust of the system, whatever form that takes. Think of it like a transducer that use a small amount of energy to separate and rearrange two bigger piles of energy. In physics language, you are breaking a symmetry. Universally, energy and momentum are both conserved. A waterfall is "free" energy too. You are basically creating an energy waterfall.
So you're saying that EMDrive works around conservation laws by interacting with... something. Well, that is hard to refute. I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Remember that if it conserves momentum, it also conserves energy. By assuming momentum conservation we can do energy calculations without knowing the precise mechanism. The momentum carried by the "exhaust" is always the momentum gained by the ship and kinetic energy is borrowed from the "exhaust" to conserve energy in all frames.
-
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the experimental data is not there yet. How do you know the "effect" is not somehow related to Earth's gravity? Or to lorentz forces created by the EM fields around the cavity? This does not look like hard experimental data to me... just yet. But I agree in principle - "hard experimental data" may change everything.
-
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the experimental data is not there yet. How do you know the "effect" is not somehow related to Earth's gravity? Or to lorentz forces created by the EM fields around the cavity? This does not look like hard experimental data to me... just yet. But I agree in principle - "hard experimental data" may change everything.
Hard experimental data trumps all theoretical speculation. If the effect does exist but cannot be explained then that's the theorists problem not the experimenters.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the most over-used statements and one that is wheeled out far to often and often to defend overly entrenched positions.
-
About to run some sims. I suspect the antenna location is important, so I put it at BA/3*2 as with the other TE013 cavities. In this case BA=25cm I had to build the circularization antenna from scratch.
-
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the experimental data is not there yet. How do you know the "effect" is not somehow related to Earth's gravity? Or to lorentz forces created by the EM fields around the cavity? This does not look like hard experimental data to me... just yet. But I agree in principle - "hard experimental data" may change everything.
Not true, dispute Carl Sagan's famous statement. It requires the same caliber of evidence to prove anything. It's a matter of prejudice as to what constitute extraordinary or not. Besides, that quote is often used by skeptics like a hammer to end debate. It sounds true but in reality is a poor metric.
-
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the experimental data is not there yet. How do you know the "effect" is not somehow related to Earth's gravity? Or to lorentz forces created by the EM fields around the cavity? This does not look like hard experimental data to me... just yet. But I agree in principle - "hard experimental data" may change everything.
Not true, dispute Carl Sagan's famous statement. It requires the same caliber of evidence to prove anything. It's a matter of prejudice as to what constitute extraordinary or not. Besides, that quote is often used by skeptics like a hammer to end debate. It sounds true but in reality is a poor metric.
Absolutely agree. It's usually more to try and defend a pre-existing belief rather than being open to new suggestions.
-
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Nope. For upper stage, the "final kinetic energy equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat" formula is still true. You just need to take into account that the "total kinetic energy gained by the propellant" will be negative since it will be losing kinetic energy instead of gaining it (the upper stage is "slowing down" the propellant, thus reducing its kinetic energy).
This has nothing to do with the upper stage specifically, but with choosing a different inertial reference frame for calculations. If you choose a frame that is moving at a high speed relative to the rocket when the fuel starts burning (let's say it's moving in the opposite direction), the propellant will already have a lot of kinetic energy. However, once the fuel starts burning, the rocket will start gaining kinetic energy, but the propellant will start losing kinetic energy. If you run the math, the result is the same in any inertial frame.
You are just repeating what I explained and adding a 'Nope' at the start. I got the concept from rocket experts quoted on Wikipedia so you can go argue with them.
What I said is still exactly true.
-
Fine but that's just an opinion that shouldn't be given the same weight as the hard experimental data.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the experimental data is not there yet. How do you know the "effect" is not somehow related to Earth's gravity? Or to lorentz forces created by the EM fields around the cavity? This does not look like hard experimental data to me... just yet. But I agree in principle - "hard experimental data" may change everything.
Not true, dispute Carl Sagan's famous statement. It requires the same caliber of evidence to prove anything. It's a matter of prejudice as to what constitute extraordinary or not. Besides, that quote is often used by skeptics like a hammer to end debate. It sounds true but in reality is a poor metric.
Clarity here.
One always holds an open mind to potential explanations. Where the "same calibre of evidence" is used to prove.
Conclusions are a different matter. They require multiple proofs from multiple different approaches. Otherwise it is too easy to have a systematic error conspire to support a false conclusion.
Which is why with Einstein "frame dragging" effects, we've had hundreds of different ways to confirm the effect. Expect even more in the future. It is a measure of the confidence in a correct conclusion that we keep on challenging things, long after there's a supportable conclusion.
That is an example of "extraordinary evidence".
-
You are just repeating what I explained and adding a 'Nope' at the start. I got the concept from rocket experts quoted on Wikipedia so you can go argue with them.
What I said is still exactly true.
OK, so how is the "upper stage" argument relevant? No matter how you twist it, you're not getting more kinetic energy than the total chemical energy burnt, you're getting less. The amount of chemical energy it took for the 1st stage to accelerate this propellant is enormous. The upper stage is in a sense "stealing" from that already accelerated propellant (it's not if you change the ref frame to one co-moving with the upper stage at the moment of separation). You need to accelerate something first before you can start "stealing" kinetic energy from it.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
Todd,
Very interesting. Is your thrust equation basically the same as Shawyer? It looks very close. Also, this gravity you generate carries the momentum and preserves the CoE in all frames as we have been debating, correct?
-
from the patent :
"a single crystal sapphire substrate is glued to the major end plate..."
Euh.. why the sapphire?
What special property does it have, that it is needed for the inside of the big plate?
He got the Helical antenna right on. (one a NSFer did for me by 3D printing July 2015)
Saphire is a great thermal conductor and has a High dielectric constant (9.39 from 1.0 MHz to 8.5 GHz) a nice pick.
Shell
But according to the patent application, the sapphire is strictly a substrate for the superconductor. It never sees the EM field due to the YBCO film. If the idea was to have a thermally stable substrate, quartz would have been a better (and certainly less expensive) choice. Additionally, the lattice mismatch between single crystal sapphire (Al2O3) and YBCO is pretty severe. Not a good choice.
Did some Googling:
"YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates"
Seems this arrangement is common for microwave high power space applications. So it is a good choice.
-
I doubt the small end plate curve is a parabola.
If you follow this you get a curve that is not a perfect radius:
"This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH."
I agree. This plots out to be a long winded "patentese" description of a parabolic surface with an additional reverse parabolic surface to correct for the antenna not being at the focus of the primary reflector. As I said earlier, a catadioptric
reflector designed to correct for phase distortion in the "optical" (microwave) system.
Apparently, if you stand in a funnel shaped room with a large steel plate behind you and fire a machine gun at a small parabolic sponge in front of you, the entire room will move forward as the bullets bounce off the sponge and then richochet off the plate. And the entire room will STILL move in the SAME direction if you turn around and fire at the steel plate first, so the richochet then bounces off the parabolic sponge.
-
You are just repeating what I explained and adding a 'Nope' at the start. I got the concept from rocket experts quoted on Wikipedia so you can go argue with them.
What I said is still exactly true.
OK, so how is the "upper stage" argument relevant? No matter how you twist it, you're not getting more kinetic energy than the total chemical energy burnt, you're getting less. The amount of chemical energy it took for the 1st stage to accelerate this propellant is enormous. The upper stage is in a sense "stealing" from that already accelerated propellant (it's not if you change the ref frame to one co-moving with the upper stage at the moment of separation). You need to accelerate something first before you can start "stealing" kinetic energy from it.
Because an EmDrive should act like you had one stage after another after another and so on and the enhanced kinetic energy of the upper stage wrt the original starting frame of the rocket would build upon itself with each 'burn'. So it kind of illustrates that point even though each stage does not violate CoE.
I think those debating the point would assume that an EmDrive would always be energetically tied to the original starting frame and never gain a kinetic energy beyond the total amount of energy that was put into it such that Ein = 0.5 M V^2. Correct?
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
OK, let me try to rephrase... I find the explanation that "the apparent thrust observed in the tests that have been conducted so far is attributed to some natural error factor that has not yet been taken into account properly" a lot more plausible.
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
-
Let the mud fly! 8)
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
Todd,
Very interesting. Is your thrust equation basically the same as Shawyer? It looks very close. Also, this gravity you generate carries the momentum and preserves the CoE in all frames as we have been debating, correct?
It's basically the same as @Notsosureofit's Hypothesis, except I took a different approach to derive it, using power loss as a means of generating a gradient.
Momentum is conserved because it is the inertial mass of the internal field that is attracted toward the big end of the frustum, forming a gradient. Therefore, the frustum moves the other way with the same force, conserving momentum. Dissipation allows the energy to escape so the cycle can be repeated.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
-
Momentum is conserved because it is the inertial mass of the internal field that is attracted toward the big end of the frustum, forming a gradient. Therefore, the frustum moves the other way with the same force, conserving momentum. Dissipation allows the energy to escape so the cycle can be repeated.
The momentum gradient is caused because the guide wavelength varies as attached. As it get longer, the momentum drops. Invert the guide wavelength increase curve (Blue) as attached to get the momentum drop curve.
As you can see it is a non linear effect. So if you modeled the axial side wall area as an annular ring around the small end plate, as viewed from the big end plate, the total of the forces against the small end would not add up to those of the big end because the momentum drops faster than the diameter of the waveguide drops.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
The copper PCB EMI shield is only a shield if it's grounded. Otherwise, it's an antenna, with the currents and charge densities thereof. Was it grounded?
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
EW's results are likely in the uN's, not 8mN, so please do not mix the two different experiments.
I myself have been peer reviewer, and I have published peer reviewed papers. So I know that peer reviewers can miss things. I am curious about whether the NASA Blue Ribbon panel spotted the ground loop problem in EW's 2014 paper. Based on Paul March's post, I infer that they did not.
I am reluctant to comment on your 8mN experiment.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
The copper PCB EMI shield is only a shield if it's grounded. Otherwise, it's an antenna, with the currents and charge densities thereof. Was it grounded?
Let alone RF grounded, with ground points << than wavelength (like the holes in a microwave oven window screen, as an example). You can have great DC grounding, yet have tremendous RF currents at the same time, and on the same board, circuit, shield, whatever. The devil is in the details.
-
EW's results are likely in the uN's, not 8mN, so please do not mix the two different experiments.
I myself have been peer reviewer, and I have published peer reviewed papers. So I know that peer reviewers can miss things. I am curious about whether the NASA Blue Ribbon panel spotted the ground loop problem in EW's 2014 paper. Based on Paul March's post, I infer that they did not.
I am reluctant to comment on your 8mN experiment.
The Blue Ribbon panel were post the 2014 paper. From info from Paul, there was some but not significant impact on the 2014 results from your comments.
BTW in my setup it was easy to orient the coax to be aligned with the 4 points of the magnetic compass and to redo the experiment in 3 different locations. Nothing had any significant effect.
Still wanting to understand how a Lorentz force could be generated from that setup. If none then that is good info that I designed a good test setup and will us it again when my 4 new frustums and 2 new Rf amps arrive.
-
Tried to ground it to the static ground on the work bench. Made no observable difference.
Any fields leaking from the frustum would induce eddy currents, which would turn the Em energy into heat energy, in the Cu layer which was many times thicker than the skin depth at 2.45GHz. Plus this was a double sided PCB so there were two insulated layers of Cu for any Em fields to get through.
Have you actually tried to operate a Cu frustum next to a digital scale and observed the effects with and without a dual layer Cu shield?
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
Very nice work!
My Best,
Shell
PS: Wondering if this design should be tested with the laser White–Juday warp-field interferometer, just saying.
-
Interesting presentation I'm watching @
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXiitWK_6Qg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
Published on Sep 22, 2016
An in-depth survey of the various technologies for spaceship propulsion, both from those we can expect to see in a few years and those at the edge of theoretical science. We'll break them down to basics and familiarize ourselves with the concepts.
Note: I made a rather large math error about the Force per Power the EmDrive exerts at 32:10, initial tentative results for thrust are a good deal higher than I calculated compared to a flashlight.
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
Given your scale is 3000g X 0.01g you have a 300,000:1 dynamic range assuming one count of noise. That kind of dynamic range strongly suggests that your scale is a force restoration device which consists of a voice coil actuator and a strong permanent magnet as a major part of the mechanism. This means that it is strongly influenced by stray EM fields usually resulting in false readings; even steady state false readings. The best way to mitigate is to provide separation by spacing your EM drive up on a light weight tall spacer.
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
Aero and I did a "Ice Cream Cone" simulation but because of modeling limits with meep we never did a helical antenna or even a loop. Plus the endplates are reversed from Shawyer's. Although I think it's still a good idea.
Shell
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
Hello !Can you tell me the shape of this antenna?
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
Have you pre-decided that the NASA results upcoming in December are not real evidence?
I don't know what the results are so of course they aren't included in any statements I make.
Have you pre-decided that they are completely noise and error free unambiguous results?
-
I made a quick model of the new geometry. It doesn't appear to be parabolic as I was unable to get a perfect fit using my modeling program's "conic section" curve type. There are 100 evenly spaced points traced along the curved small end using short, straight segments. The points were constructed by using the direct method of creating 100 line segments of equal length passing thru a common focal point at the small end, spaced evenly along a straight line passing thru the center of the big end to the outer edge of the big end.
The dimensions are arbitrary, but should be able to be uniformly scaled to whatever dimensions are required:
Big End Radius/Diameter: 50/100
Small end Radius/Diameter: 25/50
Length of side: 50
I am able to modify any of the dimensions and re-export, if scaling is impossible or difficult. It only takes around 10-15 minutes, however, my time and access to the internet are limited. I will respond to personal messages on this forum, usually within a day.
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
I don't get your last paragraph. Even Shwayer talks about static forces in test rigs as well as non accelerating lifting devices for cars and lifting spacecraft to GEO. I think an EmDrive is like a rocket with an inexhaustible fuel source where the mass doesn't change.
Static Force measurement is of the primary end plate radiation pressure derived Thrust force. The only way to measure the equal but opposite Reaction force that I know of requires the EmDrive to be able to freely accelerate.
Levitation requires acceleration of the levitated mass at 1g. So even though it may not move, to the EmDrive it is accelerating the mass at 1g.
If I'm reading this correctly and Fg1 is greater than Fg2, the diagram should be edited to show T=Q*(Fg1-Fg2). Show acceleration by a vector pointing toward the big end, and the d'Alembert force as R=-m*a. I think that may clear up a lot of confusion.
mh
-
For discussion of forces, I would like to suggest that the terms thrust and reaction cause too much confusion, since they mean different things to different people in different situations. I have always found it helpful to refer to forces as "the force applied to X by Y" that way it is clear that the force is applied to X, and is the direction X will accelerate in if there are no other forces on X.
For example, using the force diagram in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598140#msg1598140) (and ignoring the caption that claims you experience a force by looking at an emDrive):
Fg1 is the force applied to the large end of the cavity by the EM fields. Fg2 is the Force applied to the small end of the cavity by the EM fields. T is the vector sum of Fg1 and Fg2, and is the net force applied to the cavity by the EM fields. R is the opposite of T and is the force applied to the EM fields by the cavity. The momentum gained by the fields due to force R does not matter in Shawyer's theory because according to him EM fields can gain and lose momentum without interacting with anything else.
Let me break this down as simple as possible:
1. Force on the large end of the cavity is pointed from the small end to the large end.
2. Force on the small end of the cavity is pointed from the large end to the small end.
3. Force on the large end of the cavity is larger than on the small end.
4. Therefore, the net force on the cavity it towards the large end (assuming no sidewall force)
5. Using only F=m*a, this means the cavity moves in the direction of the large end.
Specifically which of these points is wrong? 1-3 come from Shawyer, 4 is simply addition (i.e. -7+12 = 5) with the no sidewalls force assumption from Shawyer and 5 is F=m*a.
Shawyer's own experiments therefore disprove his theory.
All forces have a "action force" and a matching equal but opposite "reaction force".
For the EmDrive, the Thrust force is the internal end plate differential "action force" (Small to Big) and the external Reaction force that accelerates the frustum is the opposite but equal "reaction force" (Big to Small).
You did not answer the question, which of steps 1 through 5 do you disagree with? As I described in the paragraphs above, what you are calling the "thrust" force is applied to the walls of the cavity, so it is the direction the drive will move.
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed! :o but 8)
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
Hello !Can you tell me the shape of this antenna?
You can buy them on the internet, I got this one from Ebay last year.
Called a Helical WiFi .
Shell
-
That end plate force differential is what Roger calls the Thrust force and with the right test setup it can be measured. However it will not accelerate a EmDrive as you can't have a one sided force and so the EmDrive moves in the opposite way as a equal but opposite Reaction force to the Thrust force.
Ok again this is outside the way we see the world but that does not mean it can't work like that.
Well, I can't help but wonder, why go with an "explanation" that really is "outside the way we see the world" as opposed to a number of alternative explanations that aren't?
So far there has been no convincing data published that confirms useable thrust from any EMDrive, let alone constant uniform acceleration from a constant power input.
Keeping that in mind none of the "explanations" presented rise above the level of theoretical speculation.
The test so far, is not whether one theory or model of operation is better than another, or which if any is more consistent with how we currently interpret what we understand to be fundamental laws of physics, it is how well does any of the models presented describe and/or predict (what many including myself) believe or hope the data will prove.
Assuming the EMDrive does work...
I cannot see any way that microwaves bouncing off the interior walls of a can.., frustum can possibly result in asymmetrical thrust... but Shawyer's and TT's calculation tools seem to work, so as a descriptive model they pass the test.
I have serious doubts that microwaves inside that same can/frustum, can create an asymmetric gravitational field that moves the can and moves with it, resulting in acceleration. But I would really like to see that be the case, because it would be perhaps the most significant discovery, of all time... A means of manipulating gravity? there are at least a couple of theoretical models that have been put forward involving gravity that also seem to past the test...
Whatever is going on, none of us will know with certainty, until someone has produced and published a functional EMDrive, demonstrating useable thrust repeatedly and in multiple labs or a practical functional device.
Frankly until someone does present a convincing function device, that can repeatedly create useable thrust, trying to figure out how it works is premature. At this point that would seem to require new physics or at least a reinterpretation of what we think of as fundamental physics.., today.
A long winded way of saying that, if the EMDrive works, we may have to reevaluate "the way we see the world" of physics.
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
2 Questions about TE013 mode:
Why is the energy density always highest at the small end, what time-evolutions produces this?
Why does FEKO call kA/m a "surface current"? I think it should be the Magnetic field strength, H at the surface.
If it were a surface current it would have units of kA/m2, and for any TE mode, the value should be zero, because no magnetic flux is escaping the frustum. In order to drive current around the circumference of the frustum, it requires a NET flux through the loop. There is no NET flux if the flux is toroidal AND 100% inside the loop. The TE mode almost assures there are NO Lorentz forces acting on the frustum since there is no current flowing.
(Note, this is not the case for TM modes, where the magnetic flux is circular.)
Regarding my theory: If Shawyer's new patent is correct, then I probably have it backwards in my EM Drive Theory, because I said the power is dissipated at the big end, where he made the big end superconducting and the small end out of aluminum. This implies that the dissipation is happening at the small end, not the big end. Still, as it dissipates, it's weight moves toward the big end so the frustum can move forward.
I think essentially what I need is the energy density distribution throughout the frustum. Which can be derived from these images. It's just eps0E2.
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration.
-
https://youtu.be/yM25-lz1Yms (https://youtu.be/yM25-lz1Yms)
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
Hello !Can you tell me the shape of this antenna?
You can buy them on the internet, I got this one from Ebay last year.
Called a Helical WiFi .
Shell
Thank you very much, now my thrust platform has been finished, solid source and signal source is ready
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed! :o but 8)
How much thrust can be generated with such device? It is fascinating that by changing the geometry you can get so much higher results....It is almost scary and unbelivable even for the core believers in the EmDrive. Still, I am enthusiast, but I need to see it too before really believe. Lets hope 2017 will deliver.
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
What I see is where the antenna enters the frustum is good as there are no eddy currents being cut in the dead centre of the curved end plate and the antenna is symmetrically coupling to the internal EmWaves.
Existing way is to couple into the centre of one of the mode lobes via an antenna inserted through the side wall.
Nicely done.
-
Here is a plot of TE013 Guide Wavelength change versus Radiation Pressure (EmWave momentum) of the commercial EmDrive thrusters I'm building. Resolution is approx 65k points along the central axis of the frustum. The integral of the guide wavelength gives 3 x 1/2 effective guide waves from big to small end plate at 2.45GHz, which very closely matches the FEKO resonance of 2.43GHz in TE013.
As you can see neither plot is linear, which means that if you took the integral of the axial radiation pressure forces toward the small end, they would not equal the radiation pressure against the big end where the radiation pressure is constant over the entire surface area. Which shows the side wall forces cancel out argument is not valid as that argument assumes equal radiation pressure at all points, which is not the case.
There is nothing new here. All this has been in the text books and published papers for 65 years.
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
Attached are the Force thrust vectors as measured in the scale based test results and the actual weight change that was measured in each of the force vector directions.
Also attached is the technical report for those who wish to read up on how the tests were conducted.
To measure the accelerative Reaction force that is equal but opposite to the Thrust force requires the EmDrive to be tested on a rotary test rig as was done on 2006, which showed the accelerative Reaction force was in the opposite direction to the Thrust force and of the same level of force as shown in line 5 of the results in the summary attachment.
For DIYers doing force measurements using spring based systems (scales, torsion pendulums, etc), it would seem that what has been measured is the Thrust force and not the accelerative Reaction force.
What this data shows is the EmDrive does work as Roger's theory claims, generating a Thrust force (small to big) from the differential of the radiation pressure due to EmWave momentum change as the frustum diameter varies that can be measured.
Plus the opposite but equal accelerative Reaction force can be measure by using a rotary test rig.
So the test results show there is a small to big Thrust force vector generated which follows the change in frustum diameter and there is an equal but opposite accelerative Reaction force generated that can be used to achieve propollentless but not energy less acceleration.
Should add that you can measure both forces but not at the same time.
Those that desire to develop alternative explanations as to why the Thrust force is generated, need to factor in that the value of the Thrust force follows end plate diameter change vs EmWave momentum change vs excitation mode vs excitation freq vs frustum Qu vs frustum Rf power.
So far there is only one theory that fits all those variables together and that is Roger's theory.
-
I have not read any comments on what I see as a notable part of Shawyer's Patent Application. It seems that there is a cycling of the frequency and cavity length. With a use of 2 cavities cycling 180 degrees out of phase to keep the thrust constant.
Shell talks about seeing a jerk in the thrust in her data. I would interpret this jerk as some kind of resonance point in the coupling of the cavity field to the quantum / space time background (whatever this background really is).
That begs the question, is the cycling in the patent application a method of tuning the cavity and frequency to maximize coupling, hence maximizing acceleration?
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed! :o but 8)
How much thrust can be generated with such device? It is fascinating that by changing the geometry you can get so much higher results....It is almost scary and unbelivable even for the core believers in the EmDrive. Still, I am enthusiast, but I need to see it too before really believe. Lets hope 2017 will deliver.
I typed dry air breakdown voltage in google and I get this:
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 10^6 V/m."
-
The e-field strength for this new Bell geometry and circularizing antenna is off the charts. I'm now at 250,000 kV/m. :o
-
I made a quick model of the new geometry. It doesn't appear to be parabolic as I was unable to get a perfect fit using my modeling program's "conic section" curve type.
I used the term parabola to distinguish it from a perfect spherical radius. The actual shape is what I would call a "revolved curve" - which is really 3d modeling parlance.
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
...
So many words, yet none of them mean what you seem to think. Everything you are saying is equivalent to saying that pushing an object to the left will make it move to the right. This is the opposite of F=M*a.
Here is a plot of TE013 Guide Wavelength change versus Radiation Pressure (EmWave momentum) of the commercial EmDrive thrusters I'm building. Resolution is approx 65k points along the central axis of the frustum. The integral of the guide wavelength gives 3 x 1/2 effective guide waves from big to small end plate at 2.45GHz, which very closely matches the FEKO resonance of 2.43GHz in TE013.
As you can see neither plot is linear, which means that if you took the integral of the axial radiation pressure forces toward the small end, they would not equal the radiation pressure against the big end where the radiation pressure is constant over the entire surface area. Which shows the side wall forces cancel out argument is not valid as that argument assumes equal radiation pressure at all points, which is not the case.
There is nothing new here. All this has been in the text books and published papers for 65 years.
What does non-linearity have anything to do with it?
Fundametal theorem of calculus, if you assume the momentum change in the EM wave is caused by interactions with the sidewalls, and integrate this change over the length of the cavity:
∫0L dp/dz dz = p(L) - p(0)
In other words, The momentum transferred to the sidewalls is exactly equal to the change in momentum of the wave. It does not need to be linear with length, it can literally be any smooth function (i.e. not blow up to infinity mid way)
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense.
-
I have not read any comments on what I see as a notable part of Shawyer's Patent Application. It seems that there is a cycling of the frequency and cavity length. With a use of 2 cavities cycling 180 degrees out of phase to keep the thrust constant.
Shell talks about seeing a jerk in the thrust in her data. I would interpret this jerk as some kind of resonance point in the coupling of the cavity field to the quantum / space time background (whatever this background really is).
That begs the question, is the cycling in the patent application a method of tuning the cavity and frequency to maximize coupling, hence maximizing acceleration?
Roger has discussed using multiple phased cavities in his last few papers, showing how to pulse then and generate thrust as the declining cavity energy is reflected back and forth while losing EmWave momentum to gained cavity momentum and delivering an accelerative Reaction force.
Before he needed 8 cavities to make this work. Now he has done it using 2 cavities. BTW to get a 1 sec cavity TC requires a HUGH Q as the cavity TC = Qu / (2 Pi Freq). Like a Qu of 15,400,000,000!!!
-
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense.
And there is you problem as it works and the experimental test data of both big to small Thrust experimental force measurement and small to big accelerative Reaction experimental force measurement supports the theory.
-
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense.
And there is you problem as it works and the experimental test data of both big to small Thrust experimental force measurement and small to big accelerative Reaction experimental force measurement supports the theory.
Emphasis mine.
You finally said what Shawyer's theory predicts correctly. Too bad this is in contradiction to the direction of acceleration found in all independent experiments. See the quote you just posted for what this means.
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
Attached are the Force thrust vectors as measured in the scale based test results and the actual weight change that was measured in each of the force vector directions.
Also attached is the technical report for those who wish to read up on how the tests were conducted.
To measure the accelerative Reaction force that is equal but opposite to the Thrust force requires the EmDrive to be tested on a rotary test rig as was done on 2006, which showed the accelerative Reaction force was in the opposite direction to the Thrust force and of the same level of force as shown in line 5 of the results in the summary attachment.
For DIYers doing force measurements using spring based systems (scales, torsion pendulums, etc), it would seem that what has been measured is the Thrust force and not the accelerative Reaction force.
What this data shows is the EmDrive does work as Roger's theory claims, generating a Thrust force (small to big) from the differential of the radiation pressure due to EmWave momentum change as the frustum diameter varies that can be measured.
Plus the opposite but equal accelerative Reaction force can be measure by using a rotary test rig.
So the test results show there is a small to big Thrust force vector generated which follows the change in frustum diameter and there is an equal but opposite accelerative Reaction force generated that can be used to achieve propollentless but not energy less acceleration.
Should add that you can measure both forces but not at the same time.
Those that desire to develop alternative explanations as to why the Thrust force is generated, need to factor in that the value of the Thrust force follows end plate diameter change vs EmWave momentum change vs excitation mode vs excitation freq vs frustum Qu vs frustum Rf power.
So far there is only one theory that fits all those variables together and that is Roger's theory.
I remembered that Mr. Shawyer once said the test rig must be in moving (?) for the EmDrive to generate thrust. Did that statement contradict to this test? If not, how?
Or did he say in acceleration? If that is the case, may gravity can substitute for the acceleration?
-
Better image of minor end plate and circularization antenna.
-
Did a curve fit of the patent's thrust TC curve to a standard 5x TC curve and they fit as attached.
Which says the 1 Tc cavity time is ~0.2 sec and from that the cavity Q can be calculated as Q = Tc (2 Pi Freq) = ~3.08 billion.
From that the specific accelerative Reaction force can be calculated as (2 Q Pwr Df) / c = (2 * 3,080,000,000 * 1,000 * 0.5 (conservative)) / c = 10,350N/kWrf or 1,056kg/kWrf or 1.056 mt/kWrf.
Not bad.
-
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense.
And there is you problem as it works and the experimental test data of both big to small Thrust experimental force measurement and small to big accelerative Reaction experimental force measurement supports the theory.
EM Drive may work and scale as Shawyer describes, but that doesn't mean the theory of operation is mathematically robust. Mathematical theories that don't stand up to facts are no good, but mathematically inconsistent theories aren't a good stopping point either.
-
Did a curve fit of the patent's thrust TC curve to a standard 5x TC curve and they fit as attached.
Which says the 1 Tc cavity time is ~0.2 sec and from that the cavity Q can be calculated as Q = Tc (2 Pi Freq) = ~3.08 billion.
From that the specific accelerative Reaction force can be calculated as (2 Q Pwr Df) / c = (2 * 3,080,000,000 * 1,000 * 0.5 (conservative)) / c = 10,350N/kWrf or 1,056kg/kWrf or 1.056 mt/kWrf.
Not bad.
I'll have to ask that you forgive my incredulity in light of the current lack of public, high impulse test results. This sounds way, way too good to be true.
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
Attached are the Force thrust vectors as measured in the scale based test results and the actual weight change that was measured in each of the force vector directions.
Also attached is the technical report for those who wish to read up on how the tests were conducted.
To measure the accelerative Reaction force that is equal but opposite to the Thrust force requires the EmDrive to be tested on a rotary test rig as was done on 2006, which showed the accelerative Reaction force was in the opposite direction to the Thrust force and of the same level of force as shown in line 5 of the results in the summary attachment.
For DIYers doing force measurements using spring based systems (scales, torsion pendulums, etc), it would seem that what has been measured is the Thrust force and not the accelerative Reaction force.
What this data shows is the EmDrive does work as Roger's theory claims, generating a Thrust force (small to big) from the differential of the radiation pressure due to EmWave momentum change as the frustum diameter varies that can be measured.
Plus the opposite but equal accelerative Reaction force can be measure by using a rotary test rig.
So the test results show there is a small to big Thrust force vector generated which follows the change in frustum diameter and there is an equal but opposite accelerative Reaction force generated that can be used to achieve propollentless but not energy less acceleration.
Should add that you can measure both forces but not at the same time.
Those that desire to develop alternative explanations as to why the Thrust force is generated, need to factor in that the value of the Thrust force follows end plate diameter change vs EmWave momentum change vs excitation mode vs excitation freq vs frustum Qu vs frustum Rf power.
So far there is only one theory that fits all those variables together and that is Roger's theory.
I remembered that Mr. Shawyer once said the test rig must be in moving (?) for the EmDrive to generate thrust. Did that statement contradict to this test? If not, how?
Or did he say in acceleration? If that is the case, may gravity can substitute for the acceleration?
An EmDrive generates 2 forces that can be measures but not at the same time nor with the same test setup:
1) Thrust force with a vector small to big that is the result of the differential radiation pressure on the end plates. This is a static force that can be measured with a scale.
2) Reaction force with a vector big to small and is the equal but opposite force to the Thrust force. This is a dynamic force and can only be measured during free acceleration.
Roger has measured both forces and has shown that they are approx equal in force amplitude but opposite in force vector direction.
-
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense.
And there is you problem as it works and the experimental test data of both big to small Thrust experimental force measurement and small to big accelerative Reaction experimental force measurement supports the theory.
EM Drive may work and scale as Shawyer describes, but that doesn't mean the theory of operation is mathematically robust. Mathematical theories that don't stand up to facts are no good, but mathematically inconsistent theories aren't a good stopping point either.
Everyone is free to develop their own theory as long as it matches the experimental data of dual force generation with equal force amplitudes but opposite force vectors.
-
Did a curve fit of the patent's thrust TC curve to a standard 5x TC curve and they fit as attached.
Which says the 1 Tc cavity time is ~0.2 sec and from that the cavity Q can be calculated as Q = Tc (2 Pi Freq) = ~3.08 billion.
From that the specific accelerative Reaction force can be calculated as (2 Q Pwr Df) / c = (2 * 3,080,000,000 * 1,000 * 0.5 (conservative)) / c = 10,350N/kWrf or 1,056kg/kWrf or 1.056 mt/kWrf.
Not bad.
I'll have to ask that you forgive my incredulity in light of the current lack of public, high impulse test results. This sounds way, way too good to be true.
I agree.
The data is based on the calculated Q value from the patents thrust curves vs time.
As I showed, the thrust curves follow a standard 5x TC curve, which allows the 1 TC time to be determined and from that using standard resonant cavity Tc equation to determine what the effective cavity Q would need to be to have a thrust curve that lasts for 1 sec.
Yes the result seems very high but hey Roger has always stated 1ton/kW was his goal. Just maybe he has achieved it?
-
I note five things in Shaywer's new patent that are blindingly obvious:
....
Thanks, but another obvious think to notice is that this is not a patent, but just an application at this point in time. Patent applications at this stage are non enforceable since a patent has not been granted at this stage.
18 months after the patent application was filed it is automatically published and is available for anyone to look at. This is not a granted patent and the application owner cannot sue anyone yet for using his/her invention.
Within 6 months of publication one must pay a further fee and request examination. During this detailed examination, the UK Intellectual Property Office may write giving reasons why the invention is not new, or is obvious, or challenge it with other arguments. When the UK Intellectual Property Office agrees that the invention is new and inventive, the patent may be granted. The process for obtaining a UK granted patent usually takes about 4 years from the date of the application. However, if one pays some fees early and replies promptly to letters from the UK Intellectual Property Office, it may be possible to reduce this time to as little as 18 months, if the invention is not a complex one. And if the patent is ever granted, it would become, at that point in time, just a UK patent, not a US or an international (PCT) patent. The applicant would have to file a patent application in other jurisdictions to seek protection in other jurisdictions.
-
The e-field strength for this new Bell geometry and circularizing antenna is off the charts. I'm now at 250,000 kV/m. :o
Does the large end absolutely have to be superconducting YBCO on a quartz substrate? Would it be worthwhile for a DIY-er to fabricate this geometry with a flat plate of copper and test?! :-\ (I appreciate that the small end would be a bit of a challenge)
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration.
When the fuel combusts, it goes in the opposite direction that the rocket, at high speed.
For example, if the upper stages goes initially at 3000m/s in the earth reference frame, and that the propellant is ejected to 3000m/s, it means that, after ejection, the propellant goes to 0m/s in earth reference frame. The propellant has given it's Kinetic Energy to the upper stage from the viewpoint of the earth reference frame. That means, that, at this point, the upper stage can really get more Kinetic energy in the earth reference frame that it has spent by it's own propellant chemical properties.
It does not need any gravity wall to be true.
It remains that the claim of Wicoe is still true.
Bob012345, I do not see how your statement would be a counter example.
As Wicoe has written :
the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
You just have to take into account that the kinetic energy gained by the propellant can be a negative number ! in my example it is a negative number.
The fact that an upper stage get more Kinetic Energy that it's own propellant chemical energy is perfectly conform to the statement of Wicoe.
The probem is that your formulation is ambigous.
That is the problem of the man with a wooden leg named smith (see Mary Poppins)
When you write It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
Some can understand
1)It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of the fuel included in the upper stage.
other can understand :
2)It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of the fuel included in the entire Rocket at lift off.
The problem is that we have to guess what the "its" refers to. "The rocket" or "the upper stage"
That is why you get so different answers. Some will understand 2), and tell that it is false, and why. Others will understand 1), and tell that it is true, and why.
Also when you write "the total energy content of the fuel" it is not clear if the Kinetic Energy is already included, or if you means "the chemical energy content of the fuel"
You need to choose a better formulation.
For example : It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total chemical energy content of the fuel included in the upper stage"
With this formulation, there is no more misunderstanding.
It seems that Wicoe formula was about the entire rocket, because he takes directly into account the final kinetic energy of the rocket, not an increase of Kinetic Energy. That supposes that the Kinetic Energy start to 0. It is not the case for the upper stage.
The formula would become in a upper stage only version
"the increase of Kinetic energy of the upper stage equals the chemical energy delivered by it's own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
This increase of Kinetic energy of the upper stage can be superior to the chemical energy spent, if the propellant onboard the upper stage has lost more kinetic energy than the losses as waste heat."
I assume that I neglected the potential gravity energy between the upper stage, and it's own propellant :)
-
Better image of minor end plate and circularization antenna.
Can you tell me S11?
-
I note five things in Shaywer's new patent that are blindingly obvious:
....
Thanks, but another obvious think to notice is that this is not a patent, but just an application at this point in time. Patent applications at this stage are non enforceable since a patent has not been granted at this stage.
18 months after the patent application was filed it is automatically published and is available for anyone to look at. This is not a granted patent and the application owner cannot sue anyone yet for using his/her invention.
Within 6 months of publication one must pay a further fee and request examination. During this detailed examination, the UK Intellectual Property Office may write giving reasons why the invention is not new or is obvious. When the UK Intellectual Property Office agrees that the invention is new and inventive, the patent may be granted. The process for obtaining a UK granted patent usually takes about 4 years from the date of the application. However, if one pays some fees early and replies promptly to letters from the UK Intellectual Property Office, it may be possible to reduce this time to as little as 18 months, if the invention is not a complex one. And if the patent is ever granted, it would become, at that point in time, just a UK patent, not a US or an international (PCT) patent.
Roger would have a priority filing date over most of the world that would allow other patents to be applied for and enforced in other countries.
Would suspect by publication date, Roger is well advanced on further developments and bringing this to market with the the new JV partner Giles, aka Gilo Cardozo of the Gilo Industries Group who are a UK aerospace firm.
Please remember Roger did say he was developing a drone with a Uk aerospace company? Well guess what Gilo group supplies drone motors. Easy to use a 1t/kWrf EmDrive to replace a fossil fuel drone motor or even the backpack motor of a ParaJet para glider or to build Gilo's desired Sky Car.
Interesting future ahead.
-
...Roger would have a priority filing date over most of the world that would allow other patents to be applied for and enforced in other countries.
With the publication of this application the clock has started ticking for the applicant to file such applications in other jurisdictions if the applicant wishes to do so, since there is a well-specified small amount of time for the applicant to seek such protection in other jurisdictions if the applicant wishes to do so, after the application has been made public and part of the open literature. After that time runs out, it means that nobody will be able to seek identical claim protection as published, since now the information on those claims has become public information.
-
...Roger would have a priority filing date over most of the world that would allow other patents to be applied for and enforced in other countries.
With the publication of this application the clock has started ticking for the applicant to file such applications in other jurisdictions if he wishes to do so, since there is a well-specified small amount of time for the applicant to seek such protection in other jurisdictions if he/her wishes to do so, after the application has been made public and part of the open literature.
Point was the patent application filing date has locked down a worldwide priority date.
-
Dear Traveller
You claimed several times that the experiments were in favour of the constant thrust for constant input power.
I personally claim that there is no experimental evidence for thrust bigger than Pi/V where Pi is the input Power, and V the speed of the frustum in the laboratory reference frame. I do not claim that it is a true limit, I just claim that there is still no experiment that shows more thrust.
For example, for a speed V=3km/s the maximum thrust predicted by my formula is 333mN/Kw (this one is also indicated by Shawyer)
For a speed of V=300m/s the maximum thrust is 3,333N/Kw
For a speed of V=3m/s the maximum thrust is 333,33 N/Kw
For a speed of 1 m/s the maximum thrust is 1000N/Kw (much, is not it ?)
For a speed of 1cm/s the maximum thrust is 100 000N/Kw...
For a speed of 0 m/s there is no limit to the maximum thrust.
Does any experiment show a stronger force that the maximum predicted by my formula ?
What was the higher force measured by a rotary rig ? at what speed ?
-
Dear Traveller
You claimed several times that the experiments were in favour of the constant thrust for constant input power.
I personally claim that there is no experimental evidence for thrust bigger than Pi/V where Pi is the input Power, and V the speed of the frustum in the laboratory reference frame. I do not claim that it is a true limit, I just claim that there is still no experiment that shows more thrust.
For example, for a speed V=3km/s the maximum thrust predicted by my formula is 333mN/Kw (this one is also indicated by Shawyer)
For a speed of V=300m/s the maximum thrust is 3,333N/Kw
For a speed of V=3m/s the maximum thrust is 333,33 N/Kw
For a speed of 1 m/s the maximum thrust is 1000N/Kw (much, is not it ?)
For a speed of 1cm/s the maximum thrust is 100 000N/Kw...
For a speed of 0 m/s there is no limit to the maximum thrust.
Does any experiment show a stronger force that the maximum predicted by my formula ?
What was the higher force measured by a rotary rig ? at what speed ?
In his later papers, Roger stated his earlier statements on velocity reducing thrust were incorrect and he withdrew them.
As far as I know, no rotary test rig has even started to get to those values. Long way away.
-
...Roger would have a priority filing date over most of the world that would allow other patents to be applied for and enforced in other countries.
With the publication of this application the clock has started ticking for the applicant to file such applications in other jurisdictions if he wishes to do so, since there is a well-specified small amount of time for the applicant to seek such protection in other jurisdictions if he/her wishes to do so, after the application has been made public and part of the open literature.
Point was the patent application filing date has locked down a worldwide priority date.
Date of filing patent application April 7, 2015 (07/04/15) (*)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379060;sess=45576
Example: if filing international (PCT) application has to be done within one year of filing the original national application, the deadline for that PCT patent application is long past: April 7, 2016 (**)
for filing internationally is to file a patent application in accordance with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Taking this route, the applicant files a patent application in a single Paris Convention member country (usually required to be the country of residence of at least one of the inventors), which establishes a first or priority filing date for the application. The applicant can then delay filing in other Paris Convention countries for up to 12 months after the priority filing date. Member countries of the Paris Convention agree to recognize the priority date of a patent application filed in one member country and to give the benefit of that priority date to corresponding applications in all member countries. This approach delays the costs associated with international patent procurement for one year. Procurement costs initially accrue in the country of first filing, and then, up to one year later, the costs associated with filing applications in the other Paris Convention countries begin to accrue
------------
(*) Date format in the US is mm/dd/yyyy , whereas in Europe (including the UK) the format is dd/mm/yyyy
(**) The priority date may be earlier than the actual filing date of the application. If a patent application is an original, non-provisional patent application, not a continuation application, and not previously filed in another country, its filing date is usually the same as its priority date.
-
This has undoubtedly been mentioned before and probably doesn't go very far towards explaining how the emdrive really works. But if the emdrive does work the double slit experiment could offer an explanation. If individual photons shot through slits can interfere with waves and or particles that are not "present" during the experiment then perhaps the resonance pattern is causing a wave which takes advantage of or pushes against this unseen interference. Or is that what a quantum vacuum is?
-
Dear Traveller
You claimed several times that the experiments were in favour of the constant thrust for constant input power.
I personally claim that there is no experimental evidence for thrust bigger than Pi/V where Pi is the input Power, and V the speed of the frustum in the laboratory reference frame. I do not claim that it is a true limit, I just claim that there is still no experiment that shows more thrust.
For example, for a speed V=3km/s the maximum thrust predicted by my formula is 333mN/Kw (this one is also indicated by Shawyer)
For a speed of V=300m/s the maximum thrust is 3,333N/Kw
For a speed of V=3m/s the maximum thrust is 333,33 N/Kw
For a speed of 1 m/s the maximum thrust is 1000N/Kw (much, is not it ?)
For a speed of 1cm/s the maximum thrust is 100 000N/Kw...
For a speed of 0 m/s there is no limit to the maximum thrust.
Does any experiment show a stronger force that the maximum predicted by my formula ?
What was the higher force measured by a rotary rig ? at what speed ?
In his later papers, Roger stated his earlier statements on velocity reducing thrust were incorrect and he withdrew them.
As far as I know, no rotary test rig has even started to get to those values. Long way away.
Thanks very much for the information. The point that Shawyer has retracted older statements is very important. In what document did it clearly ?
Also, the fact that there is no experimental evidence that the thrust can be superior to Pi/V is very important about possible theories of how the drive works. In fact, if the thrust was superior to Pi/V, it should dismiss many possible theories.
-
This has undoubtedly been mentioned before and probably doesn't go very far towards explaining how the emdrive really works. But if the emdrive does work the double slit experiment could offer an explanation. If individual photons shot through slits can interfere with waves and or particles that are not "present" during the experiment then perhaps the resonance pattern is causing a wave which takes advantage of or pushes against this unseen interference. Or is that what a quantum vacuum is?
Then again it could transfer some of the EmWave momentum to the cavity, thus preserving CofM.
Where is it written by the gods of existence that the only way to transfer momentum between EmWave and mass is via the EmWave to bounce /reflect off the mass and leave some momentum behind? Sure that is all we have seen to date, well until Roger came along and discovered another way to transfer momentum from EmWave to mass.
-
Thanks very much for the information. The point that Shawyer has retracted older statements is very important. In what document did it clearly ?
IAC 2013 paper as attached.
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
Shawyer has always claimed that all that is required is Special Relativity (not General Relativity) and , Maxwell's equations, and Newton's third law. He is on videotape saying this. If you disagree, please show a reference where Shawyer ever invokes General Relativity. Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hTdSg47h3k
-
This has undoubtedly been mentioned before and probably doesn't go very far towards explaining how the emdrive really works. But if the emdrive does work the double slit experiment could offer an explanation. If individual photons shot through slits can interfere with waves and or particles that are not "present" during the experiment then perhaps the resonance pattern is causing a wave which takes advantage of or pushes against this unseen interference. Or is that what a quantum vacuum is?
Take a look at the focal point of the small diameter end, beyond the physical plane of the large diameter. Assume there is such a thing as quantum entanglement. Look up type II photons. Study the conditions required to create entanglement. Think you'll be on your way to developing a good theory. Your "interference" reference got my attention. Good luck...
-
A response from THE man himself. Very prompt too. You must be watching these forums very closely!
So you are saying the device doesn't scale? lol. btw-- thank you for correcting me, I thought I had a eureka moment in understanding the device. Obviously, less than amateur enthusiast here!!
-
A response from THE man himself. Very prompt too. You must be watching these forums very closely!
So you are saying the device doesn't scale? lol. btw-- thank you for correcting me, I thought I had a eureka moment in understanding the device. Obviously, less than amateur enthusiast here!!
Maybe General Relativity is involved and your Eureka moment is correct. General Relativity (and several other possible effects) would make this an open system, which would nullify all the conservation of energy arguments being made in NSF pages that deal with conservation of energy as a closed system and ignore General Relativity gravitational effects (or other gravitational theories like Brans-Dicke or Hoyle-Narlikar).
The conservation of energy arguments being made would be like somebody claiming that a Gravity Assist maneuver is impossible, because a spacecraft considered as a closed system, where gravity is ignored, would be breaking conservation of energy in a swing-by maneuver.
I just wanted to clarify what Shawyer maintains, and in no way do I now or I have ever agreed with Shawyer's explanation that a closed microwave cavity can self-accelerate purely based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's third law. :)
-
Well... that would be wonderful now wouldn't it? How profound the implications might be.
-
A response from THE man himself. Very prompt too. You must be watching these forums very closely!
So you are saying the device doesn't scale? lol. btw-- thank you for correcting me, I thought I had a eureka moment in understanding the device. Obviously, less than amateur enthusiast here!!
Maybe General Relativity is involved and your Eureka moment is correct. General Relativity (and several other possible effects) would make this an open system, which would nullify all the conservation of energy arguments being made in NSF pages that deal with conservation of energy as a closed system and ignoring gravitational effects.
The conservation of energy arguments being made would be like somebody claiming that a Gravity Assist maneuver is impossible, because a spacecraft considered as a closed system, where gravity is ignored, would be breaking conservation of energy in a swing-by maneuver.
I just wanted to clarify what Shawyer maintains, and in no way do I now or I have ever agreed with Shawyer's explanation :)
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
2.
Q. How can a net force be produced by a closed waveguide?
A. At the propagation velocities (greater than one tenth the speed of light) the effects of special relativity must be considered. Different reference planes have to be used for the EM wave and the waveguide itself. The thruster is therefore an open system and a net force can be produced.
-
...
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
2.
Q. How can a net force be produced by a closed waveguide?
A. At the propagation velocities (greater than one tenth the speed of light) the effects of special relativity must be considered. Different reference planes have to be used for the EM wave and the waveguide itself. The thruster is therefore an open system and a net force can be produced.
Yes, again, he continues to claim only Special Relativity and not General Relativity. He does not specify what makes it an open system (what external fields is he considering ?)
-
Well if this is the case... Higher energy photons should have a greater affect. And if that holds to be true, we may one day have a super emdrive. Imagine, an emdrive with photon energies as dense as the xray and gamma spectrum.
-
The formula would become in a upper stage only version
"the increase of Kinetic energy of the upper stage equals the chemical energy delivered by it's own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
This increase of Kinetic energy of the upper stage can be superior to the chemical energy spent, if the propellant onboard the upper stage has lost more kinetic energy than the losses as waste heat."
The upper stage is still a rocket (just a smaller one), so all you have to do is change the reference frame so that the rocket is already moving at t0. However, changing the reference frame does not change the formula:
"The increase of kinetic energy of a rocket (or the upper stage, which is still a rocket) equals the chemical energy delivered by its own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained (has to be read as "lost" if negative) by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat".
I realize that you just wanted to slightly change the language so that it better fits the upper stage case, and it's understood that the underlying mathematical formula is the same. If anyone needs a detailed mathematical explanation, here it is (for both ref frames).
Let's assume that dt is our time interval, m is the mass of the propellant burnt between t0 and t0+dt, M is the mass of the rocket (not including m!), and dVp and dVr are the resulting velocity increases of the propellant and the rocket (absolute values). In the ref frame co-moving with the rocket at t0, the kinetic energy increase of the rocket (dKr) will be MdVr^2/2, and the kinetic energy increase of the propellant (dKp) will be mdVp^2/2. If you add these values together (dK = dKr+dKp = MdVr^2/2 + mdVp^2/2), you'll get the chemical energy burnt less the energy wasted as heat.
Now let's switch to the reference frame of the earth, and let's assume that the rocket is already moving relative to the earth (at t0), and has the speed of U. The kinetic energy increase of the rocket (dKr) will be M(U+dVr)^2/2 - MU^2/2. The kinetic energy increase of the propellant (dKp) will be m(U-dVp)^2/2 - mU^2/2. Let's add these values together: dK = dKr+dKp = M(U+dVr)^2/2 - MU^2/2 + m(U-dVp)^2/2 - mU^2/2 = MU^2/2 + MUdVr + MdVr^2/2 - MU^2/2 + mU^2/2 - mUdVp + mdVp^2/2 - mU^2/2 = MdVr^2/2 + mdVp^2/2 + (MUdVr - mUdVp). Now, since momentum is conserved as well, MdVr = mdVp, and you get the same result as in the co-moving reference frame: dK = MdVr^2/2 + mdVp^2/2, which corresponds to the chemical energy burnt less the energy wasted as heat.
-
Well if this is the case... Higher energy photons should have a greater affect. And if that holds to be true, we may one day have a super emdrive. Imagine, an emdrive with photon energies as dense as the xray and gamma spectrum.
10,000N/kWrf or 1,000kg/kWrf is not enough?
-
Well if this is the case... Higher energy photons should have a greater affect. And if that holds to be true, we may one day have a super emdrive. Imagine, an emdrive with photon energies as dense as the xray and gamma spectrum.
10,000N/kWrf or 1,000kg/kWrf is not enough?
Why have billions..... when you can have..... MILLIONS??? #evilgrin
All kidding aside, if you can achieve 10,000N/kwRf with the microwave spectrum perhaps the inverse of what I am saying is applicable. Using a less energetic photon spectrum would give us a new way to test for the affect with a different photon source. If the affect can be confirmed with other photon sources it may give us a base to go on for scalability and testing of different shapes and modes without burning up devices.
-
An EmDrive generates 2 forces that can be measures but not at the same time nor with the same test setup:
1) Thrust force with a vector small to big that is the result of the differential radiation pressure on the end plates. This is a static force that can be measured with a scale.
2) Reaction force with a vector big to small and is the equal but opposite force to the Thrust force. This is a dynamic force and can only be measured during free acceleration.
Roger has measured both forces and has shown that they are approx equal in force amplitude but opposite in force vector direction.
A force is a measure of interaction between objects (can be manifested through fields but it's essentially the same). So in order to describe a force, you need to specify the objects that are pushing/pulling on each other (object A and object B). Also, any force is bi-directional: if you swap the objects, you get reaction force, acting in the opposite direction. Let's assume (for a moment) that there really is a differential radiation pressure inside the EmDrive. This means that the "thrust force" results from the the photons "pushing" on the cavity wall in the direction of the higher pressure. Of course there is also a reaction force, i.e. cavity wall "pushing back" on the photons (or, to be more exact, on the source of the photons). The "action" and "reaction" forces are of exactly the same in value. A reaction force cannot cause the acting object to move in the direction of this force. If you point a laser to a mirror, it will not start moving towards you, it will start moving away from you.
-
The upper stage is still a rocket (just a smaller one), so all you have to do is change the reference frame so that the rocket is already moving at t0. However, changing the reference frame does not change the formula:
"The increase of kinetic energy of a rocket (or the upper stage, which is still a rocket) equals the chemical energy delivered by its own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained (has to be read as "lost" if negative) by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat".
I realize that you just wanted to slightly change the language so that it better fits the upper stage case, and it's understood that the underlying mathematical formula is the same. If anyone needs a detailed mathematical explanation, here it is (for both ref frames).
Yes, that is because I wanted the clearest possible formulation about upper stage. It is also because I wanted the formula to be applicated directly, without a referential change, even if the speed of the rocket is not zero at the begining. That is why the use of "Kinetic energy increase" instead of "Kinetic energy"
The aim is to use directly the formula in the earth reference frame, without having to refer to the reference frame of the stage separation.
But, yes, it is exactly your formula, no new math beside. Just a slightly different formulation, hoping that it makes the things very clear about this solved paradox of upper stage. (Once your formula is understood, there is no paradox, no problem about CoE and upper stage)
-
Well if this is the case... Higher energy photons should have a greater affect. And if that holds to be true, we may one day have a super emdrive. Imagine, an emdrive with photon energies as dense as the xray and gamma spectrum.
10,000N/kWrf or 1,000kg/kWrf is not enough?
Why have billions..... when you can have..... MILLIONS??? #evilgrin
All kidding aside, if you can achieve 10,000N/kwRf with the microwave spectrum perhaps the inverse of what I am saying is applicable. Using a less energetic photon spectrum would give us a new way to test for the affect with a different photon source. If the affect can be confirmed with other photon sources it may give us a base to go on for scalability and testing of different shapes and modes without burning up devices.
X-rays and gamma have wavelengths on the order of nanometers and picometers. Low order resonant cavities for hard x-rays and gamma rays would be the size of atoms or smaller.
We could conceivably construct Infrared emdrives 2000nm in length, but that would require MEMS and/or nanotech.
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
OK, let me try to rephrase... I find the explanation that "the apparent thrust observed in the tests that have been conducted so far is attributed to some natural error factor that has not yet been taken into account properly" a lot more plausible.
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Shawyer's data clearly implies that spurious effects are not driving the data since these effects would very likely have very different behavior.
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me! :D
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
I hope you don't make the mistake of assuming anything you find in your setup must be what happened to theirs.
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me! :D
Probably not. The weight of the drive is probably changing, but because there is energy density changing as per E=MC^2. What I am more interested in, is how the fluctuating mass is affecting the field of gravity that is influencing the device due to the fluctuating mass.
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
Have you pre-decided that the NASA results upcoming in December are not real evidence?
I don't know what the results are so of course they aren't included in any statements I make.
Have you pre-decided that they are completely noise and error free unambiguous results?
No but I'm not someone who apriori thinks the EmDrive can't work based on fundamental physics. Someone who does will always assume experimental errors until they change their mind.
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
I hope you don't make the mistake of assuming anything you find in your setup must be what happened to theirs.
I know what my test setup measured. There was no conflict with what Roger's test setups measured. EW's test setup is very complex as the EmDrive they built was not as per Roger and had very low output that needed a lot of work done on the test setup to reduce the noise to lift the signal up to be significant.
My test setup was very KISS as that is how I design. There are no ground loops not thermal influences as the test pulses were very short, around 5 sec. Adjustment of best freq was done at 1W or less and nothing even got warm. There was no measurable EMI in the scale as it recorded no weight change when the EmDrive was, externally to the scale, supported a very small distance above but not touching it.
Simple and KISS test system that measured ~+-8mN of weight change at ~95W forward power.
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space.
-
X-rays and gamma have wavelengths on the order of nanometers and picometers. Low order resonant cavities for hard x-rays and gamma rays would be the size of atoms or smaller.
We could conceivably construct Infrared emdrives 2000nm in length, but that would require MEMS and/or nanotech.
Yep. The often cited microwaves, due to their wavelength and required resonant cavity dimensions, seem to be the most low tech friendly way to test and exploit the effect. You can go down in size by increasing the frequency/reducing the wavelength, but then you start hitting power/thermal issues due to the smaller cavity size (less mass, quicker heating, stronger need of dissipation), while you still are in the microwave regime.
Problems an infrared MEMS version of this would probably also hit very soon, requiring some other complications like active, efficient cooling. But a MEMS version of this may still be interesting for micro-thrusters in satellites, once the effect has been tested and validated.
-
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space.
It is a question of language. We can also tell that it is because the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber that it gets some velocity ;D
But, yes, it is not the fact that the fuel combusts that is important. What is important is the fact that the fuel gets a velocity.
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me! :D
I wouldn't know but logically, if gravity is being simply manipulated in an RF cavity, that suggests the concept of the Higgs field is unnecessary and thus the Standard Model is wrong.
-
We could conceivably construct Infrared emdrives 2000nm in length, but that would require MEMS and/or nanotech.
That made me think of having "sheets" of tiny EM drives created using something like current IC manufacturing processes (or larger, like motherboard manufacturing etc). Maybe even tiny 3-gimbles on each one to change the thrust direction at will. Plus you could stack them on top of each other, heat removal dependent of course.
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
2 Questions about TE013 mode:
Why is the energy density always highest at the small end, what time-evolutions produces this?
Why does FEKO call kA/m a "surface current"? I think it should be the Magnetic field strength, H at the surface.
If it were a surface current it would have units of kA/m2, and for any TE mode, the value should be zero, because no magnetic flux is escaping the frustum. In order to drive current around the circumference of the frustum, it requires a NET flux through the loop. There is no NET flux if the flux is toroidal AND 100% inside the loop. The TE mode almost assures there are NO Lorentz forces acting on the frustum since there is no current flowing.
(Note, this is not the case for TM modes, where the magnetic flux is circular.)
Regarding my theory: If Shawyer's new patent is correct, then I probably have it backwards in my EM Drive Theory, because I said the power is dissipated at the big end, where he made the big end superconducting and the small end out of aluminum. This implies that the dissipation is happening at the small end, not the big end. Still, as it dissipates, it's weight moves toward the big end so the frustum can move forward.
I think essentially what I need is the energy density distribution throughout the frustum. Which can be derived from these images. It's just eps0E2.
1.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
2.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/220/handouts/Surface%20Current%20Density.pdf
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example ;D
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space.
That was kind of my point! Any kinetic energy of the fuel in the launch/observer's frame has nothing to do with the rocket's performance. The combustion rate and resulting combustion related kinetic energy of combustion do. The efficiency of the rocket would drop off as the rockets acceleration begins to exceed the combustion rate. Other than that once the rocket is in deep space or has attained an escape velocity for any relevant gravity, kinetic energy in any frame becomes a fictitious value.
The argument is reminiscent of any number of old special relativity paradox puzzles... Second and third stages of rockets perform better not because of any kinetic energy relative to their initial rest frame, but because as they move toward or at some point out of orbit there is a decreasing resistance from gravity.
Most of these discussions are dealing with uncharted physics. What we know of the fundamental laws, with certainty.., meaning that have been experimentally observed.., has been from a preferred inertial frame the of the lab or earth. It seems there may be potential in the EMDrive to move beyond those limitations, at which time a great deal of reevaluation and rethinking of many long held beliefs will be in order.
But first we need a functional EMDrive. Not just a lot of hand waving.
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
Shawyer has always claimed that all that is required is Special Relativity (not General Relativity) and , Maxwell's equations, and Newton's third law. He is on videotape saying this. If you disagree, please show a reference where Shawyer ever invokes General Relativity. Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hTdSg47h3k
Brilliant man, one of my hero's but I disagree on a couple of details. Flying cars are a bad dream. Sure you could do it but why let the average driver who can barely manage 2D manage 3D? Just not a good idea even with computer auto-pilots. We simply cannot allow multi-ton vehicles buzzing over our rooftops all the time now matter how silent or safe they purport to be. Forget the absurd Jetson scenario. Not going to happen. Unmanned UAV for commercial and military applications and professionally piloted vehicles of course are fine. Then, I seriously doubt large scale space based solar power stations are the long term answer not with new energy concepts coming on line that will make that a boondoggle and which will power and cool the EmDrive much more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cells. But I understand he has to rationalize his technology with as many applications as possible.
-
That was kind of my point! Any kinetic energy of the fuel in the launch/observer's frame has nothing to do with the rocket's performance. The combustion rate and resulting combustion related kinetic energy of combustion do. The efficiency of the rocket would drop off as the rockets acceleration begins to exceed the combustion rate. Other than that once the rocket is in deep space or has attained an escape velocity for any relevant gravity, kinetic energy in any frame becomes a fictitious value.
Forgive me, it maybe because English is not my native language, but I do not understand clearly what you means.
Of course, if the rocket is escaping from the earth, we have to take into account the gravity losses, but I do not see why kinetic energy in any frame would becomes fictitious.
IMHO, the "upper stage paradox" is perfectly solved by the formula of Wicoe.
We can take into account the earth gravity well by adding a term.
"The increase of kinetic energy of a rocket (or the upper stage, which is still a rocket) equals the chemical energy delivered by its own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained (has to be read as "lost" if negative) by the propellant, less the energy lost as waste heat, and less the gravity losses if it is initially in a gravity well"
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me! :D
I wouldn't know but logically, if gravity is being simply manipulated in an RF cavity, that suggests the concept of the Higgs field is unnecessary and thus the Standard Model is wrong.
More accurately I think, the Higgs field is a necessary part of the Standard Model. A scalar field is what is required. It is the interpretation of what the Higgs field "is" that might be wrong, but it's existence is fairly certain.
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
Shawyer has always claimed that all that is required is Special Relativity (not General Relativity) and , Maxwell's equations, and Newton's third law. He is on videotape saying this. If you disagree, please show a reference where Shawyer ever invokes General Relativity. Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hTdSg47h3k
Brilliant man, one of my hero's but I disagree on a couple of details. Flying cars are a bad dream. Sure you could do it but why let the average driver who can barely manage 2D manage 3D? Just not a good idea even with computer auto-pilots. We simply cannot allow multi-ton vehicles buzzing over our rooftops all the time now matter how silent or safe they purport to be. Forget the absurd Jetson scenario. Not going to happen. Unmanned UAV for commercial and military applications and professionally piloted vehicles of course are fine. Then, I seriously doubt large scale space based solar power stations are the long term answer not with new energy concepts coming on line that will make that a boondoggle and which will power and cool the EmDrive much more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cells. But I understand he has to rationalize his technology with as many applications as possible.
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
Launching a cubesat to convince satellite builders that the Emdrive works would cost only 20 000 or 30 000 dollars to Shawyer, and he never managed that. How believe that he will bring to us in a short delay an Emdrive thousands of time more performant that needed in space ? Except if he dicovered that the Emdrive was not working in space, but working only near the ground.
But I am also not convinced by your arguments. Even if it is forbidden to fly over roofs at a low altitude, having 2 or 3 layers of cars on classical roads could be an advantage. Autopilot should be far more easy to manage for a flying car, because there is no pets running in the sky, no flying children, no flying bicycles, no flying flowerpots. You just have to take into account paragliders, planes, etc, other flying devices, and their density is very low, and they are very easy to detect and locate by radar.
You just have to manage the lift off. if vertical lift off is possible it is very simple. You just have to verify that there is no branches up your car.
If the system is reliable, we can not tell a priori that it is not usefull.
In the worst case, supposing it is very expensive, it could at least be used by Police, or ambulance.
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
2 Questions about TE013 mode:
Why is the energy density always highest at the small end, what time-evolutions produces this?
Why does FEKO call kA/m a "surface current"? I think it should be the Magnetic field strength, H at the surface.
If it were a surface current it would have units of kA/m2, and for any TE mode, the value should be zero, because no magnetic flux is escaping the frustum. In order to drive current around the circumference of the frustum, it requires a NET flux through the loop. There is no NET flux if the flux is toroidal AND 100% inside the loop. The TE mode almost assures there are NO Lorentz forces acting on the frustum since there is no current flowing.
(Note, this is not the case for TM modes, where the magnetic flux is circular.)
Regarding my theory: If Shawyer's new patent is correct, then I probably have it backwards in my EM Drive Theory, because I said the power is dissipated at the big end, where he made the big end superconducting and the small end out of aluminum. This implies that the dissipation is happening at the small end, not the big end. Still, as it dissipates, it's weight moves toward the big end so the frustum can move forward.
I think essentially what I need is the energy density distribution throughout the frustum. Which can be derived from these images. It's just eps0E2.
1.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
2.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/220/handouts/Surface%20Current%20Density.pdf
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
Where would you say the center of mass of the field is located in each of these modes?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pho5edqu7qbcmr/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-13%20at%202.13.31%20PM.png?dl=0
Thanks!
-
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
The Egan analysis is a work of fiction that does not recognise the guide wavelength alters as the frustum diameter alters and worse still that the EmWave momemtum alters as the guide wavelength alters.
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
What order of magnitude for the weight of the jetless winged drone ? What order of thrust ?
-
That was kind of my point! Any kinetic energy of the fuel in the launch/observer's frame has nothing to do with the rocket's performance. The combustion rate and resulting combustion related kinetic energy of combustion do. The efficiency of the rocket would drop off as the rockets acceleration begins to exceed the combustion rate. Other than that once the rocket is in deep space or has attained an escape velocity for any relevant gravity, kinetic energy in any frame becomes a fictitious value.
Forgive me, it maybe because English is not my native language, but I do not understand clearly what you means.
Of course, if the rocket is escaping from the earth, we have to take into account the gravity losses, but I do not see why kinetic energy in any frame would becomes fictitious.
IMHO, the "upper stage paradox" is perfectly solved by the formula of Wicoe.
We can take into account the earth gravity well by adding a term.
"The increase of kinetic energy of a rocket (or the upper stage, which is still a rocket) equals the chemical energy delivered by its own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained (has to be read as "lost" if negative) by the propellant, less the energy lost as waste heat, and less the gravity losses if it is initially in a gravity well"
While it is possible to add kinetic energy to your calculations when evaluating the rocket from the earth' s frame, it remains fictitious because the rocket's kinetic energy is different in different frames. An object's kinetic energy in its own frame of reference is always zero, setting aside heat and quantum effects... And it is zero in the rocket's frame whether the rocket is inertial or accelerating.
It does not add any real force/power to the combustion of the fuel and since it is different when calculated from different frames it has no impact on continued acceleration. It sometimes seems important because in some arguments, it can be confused with changes in an object's inertia. (A word which itself can sometimes be confusing, depending on how it is used.)
Some while back I read a paper that was evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c. They addressed the issue far better than I. I will try to see if I can find that paper online (no promises). I believe it was available on arXiv.
-
...
Some while back I read a paper that was evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c. They addressed the issue far better than I. I will try to see if I can find that paper online (no promises). I believe it was available on arXiv.
It would be a great contribution if you could provide a link for that reference ! (evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c).
Thanks !
Is it this one?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3833
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419075/can-humanity-design-a-probe-capable-of-visiting-another-star/
http://icarusinterstellar.org/icarus-project-status
Sorry, no. I'll keep looking, but though I keep copies of almost every paper I read, so far I don't find in my archives.
Two things I can say are; first the main issue I noted in the paper was that they were concerned about physical degradation of the hull from impacts with interstellar dust and even atoms. They did conclude that, that could be resolved with engineering..., second they referred to the kinetic energy of the spaceship itself as representing? a fictitious element? I don't recall the exact way they put it, beyond the inclusion of the fictitious label. This last only by passive recall that came up reading through the discussion here.
-
http://www.iepc2017.org/
Electric Propulsion conference every 2 years...next year in October in Atlanta...probably not ready for things like the EmDrive concept.
-
Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop in Estes Park, Colorado, 2016 -- Courtesy of SSI.org
http://ssi.org/
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
2 Questions about TE013 mode:
Why is the energy density always highest at the small end, what time-evolutions produces this?
Why does FEKO call kA/m a "surface current"? I think it should be the Magnetic field strength, H at the surface.
If it were a surface current it would have units of kA/m2, and for any TE mode, the value should be zero, because no magnetic flux is escaping the frustum. In order to drive current around the circumference of the frustum, it requires a NET flux through the loop. There is no NET flux if the flux is toroidal AND 100% inside the loop. The TE mode almost assures there are NO Lorentz forces acting on the frustum since there is no current flowing.
(Note, this is not the case for TM modes, where the magnetic flux is circular.)
Regarding my theory: If Shawyer's new patent is correct, then I probably have it backwards in my EM Drive Theory, because I said the power is dissipated at the big end, where he made the big end superconducting and the small end out of aluminum. This implies that the dissipation is happening at the small end, not the big end. Still, as it dissipates, it's weight moves toward the big end so the frustum can move forward.
I think essentially what I need is the energy density distribution throughout the frustum. Which can be derived from these images. It's just eps0E2.
1.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
2.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/220/handouts/Surface%20Current%20Density.pdf
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
Where would you say the center of mass of the field is located in each of these modes?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pho5edqu7qbcmr/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-13%20at%202.13.31%20PM.png?dl=0
Thanks!
Regarding the wavelength. I would guess there is a function that provides a multiplier at each coordinate along the axis which is constantly changing the length of lambda. For f*lambda=c either the frequency is changing for a constant velocity, the velocity is changing with constant frequency, or maybe the PV equations would apply which change both frequency and speed by the K value. I am not sure atm. A standing wave should have a constant frequency so I would guess the speed of light is changing. A group of B-field equal potential lines would cover a length of about 1/2 lambda. The first image is difficult to say judging only by 1/2 cycle so instead I would take the ratio of the separation of two equal potential lines near the big plate to the separation of the two same equal potential lines near the narrow end to get an idea of the difference in apparent wavelength multiplier. It is odd though, that compression of the magnetic field lines by the metal appear to shorten the wavelength. I'll have to think about that.
Center of mass for the field would have to do with how energy per volume is distributed over space. Integrated, the energy should be the same for both sides, at the center, I would guess.
I think TE modes eliminate static electric fields that appear from charge separation.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Below are images of the energy density, averaged over one cycle, on a cross-section through the cavity for the same three TM modes as used in our previous examples. The grey scales are normalised individually, so that white = the maximum energy density in each particular image.
The energy density he plots here makes me wonder if there is a way to rapidly shift modes using the same radiation which may then shift the center of mass rapidly. It reminds me of Shell's talking about shifting modes between TE and TM. It seems that would require a frequency change to change the center of mass though. The center of mass would come to a halt inside the cavity also. Maybe a mix between the modes?
-
The equation for the small end of the new patent frustum (with some help from Wolfram Alpha) is as follows:
x = ((a-y) sqrt(L^2-y^2))/y
Where the origin (x=0, y=0) is at the center of the big end, a is the distance from the origin to the apex of the cone, and L is the length of the cone segment. X increases along the radius of the big end, y increases from the big end to the small end.
Solving for y using just this equation is... messy. My intuition is that I will need to dust of my trig to get f(x).
-
...
Some while back I read a paper that was evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c. They addressed the issue far better than I. I will try to see if I can find that paper online (no promises). I believe it was available on arXiv.
It would be a great contribution if you could provide a link for that reference ! (evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c).
Thanks !
Is it this one?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3833
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419075/can-humanity-design-a-probe-capable-of-visiting-another-star/
http://icarusinterstellar.org/icarus-project-status
Sorry, no. I'll keep looking, but though I keep copies of almost every paper I read, so far I don't find in my archives.
Two things I can say are; first the main issue I noted in the paper was that they were concerned about physical degradation of the hull from impacts with interstellar dust and even atoms. They did conclude that, that could be resolved with engineering..., second they referred to the kinetic energy of the spaceship itself as representing? a fictitious element? I don't recall the exact way they put it, beyond the inclusion of the fictitious label. This last only by passive recall that came up reading through the discussion here.
Is it this one ?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284
The interaction of relativistic spacecrafts with the interstellar medium
Thiem Hoang, A. Lazarian, Blakesley Burkhart, Abraham Loeb
It is a study funded by Breakthrough Starshot examining the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust for spacecraft flying at 0.2 c
https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
-
...
Some while back I read a paper that was evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c. They addressed the issue far better than I. I will try to see if I can find that paper online (no promises). I believe it was available on arXiv.
It would be a great contribution if you could provide a link for that reference ! (evaluating the practicality of sending a spaceship to another star system, at 0.2 c).
Thanks !
Is it this one?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3833
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419075/can-humanity-design-a-probe-capable-of-visiting-another-star/
http://icarusinterstellar.org/icarus-project-status
Sorry, no. I'll keep looking, but though I keep copies of almost every paper I read, so far I don't find in my archives.
Two things I can say are; first the main issue I noted in the paper was that they were concerned about physical degradation of the hull from impacts with interstellar dust and even atoms. They did conclude that, that could be resolved with engineering..., second they referred to the kinetic energy of the spaceship itself as representing? a fictitious element? I don't recall the exact way they put it, beyond the inclusion of the fictitious label. This last only by passive recall that came up reading through the discussion here.
Is it this one ?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284
The interaction of relativistic spacecrafts with the interstellar medium
Thiem Hoang, A. Lazarian, Blakesley Burkhart, Abraham Loeb
It is a study funded by Breakthrough Starshot examining the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust for spacecraft flying at 0.2 c
https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
Your are good!
That is a paper I picked up a digital copy of recently and it does cover the interstellar dust issue.
Not what I was looking for or thought of as the source for treating the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious, however, after a brief review it may even be that it was the right paper that came to mind, but not where the issue of dismissing the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious originated. I will have to think and work on that a bit more.
For the time being, best anyone who cares should just take the fictiticious kinetic energy comments as my own and badly conveyed.
-
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
Where would you say the center of mass of the field is located in each of these modes?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pho5edqu7qbcmr/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-13%20at%202.13.31%20PM.png?dl=0
Thanks!
Regarding the wavelength. I would guess there is a function that provides a multiplier at each coordinate along the axis which is constantly changing the length of lambda. For f*lambda=c either the frequency is changing for a constant velocity, the velocity is changing with constant frequency, or maybe the PV equations would apply which change both frequency and speed by the K value. I am not sure atm. A standing wave should have a constant frequency so I would guess the speed of light is changing. A group of B-field equal potential lines would cover a length of about 1/2 lambda. The first image is difficult to say judging only by 1/2 cycle so instead I would take the ratio of the separation of two equal potential lines near the big plate to the separation of the two same equal potential lines near the narrow end to get an idea of the difference in apparent wavelength multiplier. It is odd though, that compression of the magnetic field lines by the metal appear to shorten the wavelength. I'll have to think about that.
Center of mass for the field would have to do with how energy per volume is distributed over space. Integrated, the energy should be the same for both sides, at the center, I would guess.
I think TE modes eliminate static electric fields that appear from charge separation.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Below are images of the energy density, averaged over one cycle, on a cross-section through the cavity for the same three TM modes as used in our previous examples. The grey scales are normalised individually, so that white = the maximum energy density in each particular image.
The energy density he plots here makes me wonder if there is a way to rapidly shift modes using the same radiation which may then shift the center of mass rapidly. It reminds me of Shell's talking about shifting modes between TE and TM. It seems that would require a frequency change to change the center of mass though. The center of mass would come to a halt inside the cavity also.
Interesting. So if we could shift frequencies from a mode where the CM is near the small end, to a frequency where the CM is near the big end, then the CM of the copper frustum should go the other way, such that the CM of the system doesn't move. Then allow the energy to dissipate before doing it again.
That could work, as long as the CM of the field doesn't oscillate back and forth. Then it's just a matter of how much mass can the field carry, which is just a matter of Q. Cool indeed! 8)
-
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
If we were in a half wavelength TE mode and flipped to a 1.5*lambda TM mode around 7 GHz I wonder if that might do the trick but I wonder if its the same thing Shell was doing. I find it interesting some modes have their energy density further ahead and compacted into a very small area.
-
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
I have asked TheTraveller for a physical definition for guide wavelength, since the normal definition doesn't make sense in a resonating cavity, but he has yet to provide one. (He always just gives an equation with no associated physical meaning in response.)
Sorry, no. I'll keep looking, but though I keep copies of almost every paper I read, so far I don't find in my archives.
Two things I can say are; first the main issue I noted in the paper was that they were concerned about physical degradation of the hull from impacts with interstellar dust and even atoms. They did conclude that, that could be resolved with engineering..., second they referred to the kinetic energy of the spaceship itself as representing? a fictitious element? I don't recall the exact way they put it, beyond the inclusion of the fictitious label. This last only by passive recall that came up reading through the discussion here.
Is it this one ?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284
The interaction of relativistic spacecrafts with the interstellar medium
Thiem Hoang, A. Lazarian, Blakesley Burkhart, Abraham Loeb
It is a study funded by Breakthrough Starshot examining the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust for spacecraft flying at 0.2 c
https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
Your are good!
That is a paper I picked up a digital copy of recently and it does cover the interstellar dust issue.
Not what I was looking for or thought of as the source for treating the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious, however, after a brief review it may even be that it was the right paper that came to mind, but not where the issue of dismissing the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious originated. I will have to think and work on that a bit more.
For the time being, best anyone who cares should just take the fictiticious kinetic energy comments as my own and badly conveyed.
I am not sure what you read but I am guessing that it was doing calculations in an accelerating reference frame, which requires "fictitious" forces that do "fictitious" work. Here is a paper that discusses this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2560.pdf
The use of the word fictitious is unfortunate, because it is unrelated to the colloquial definition, and the forces themselves are quite real when you are in a rotating reference frame. The Coriolis force and centrifugal force are examples. Also this comic is related: https://xkcd.com/123/
-
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
I have asked TheTraveller for a physical definition for guide wavelength, since the normal definition doesn't make sense in a resonating cavity, but he has yet to provide one. (He always just gives an equation with no associated physical meaning in response.)
Sorry, no. I'll keep looking, but though I keep copies of almost every paper I read, so far I don't find in my archives.
Two things I can say are; first the main issue I noted in the paper was that they were concerned about physical degradation of the hull from impacts with interstellar dust and even atoms. They did conclude that, that could be resolved with engineering..., second they referred to the kinetic energy of the spaceship itself as representing? a fictitious element? I don't recall the exact way they put it, beyond the inclusion of the fictitious label. This last only by passive recall that came up reading through the discussion here.
Is it this one ?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284
The interaction of relativistic spacecrafts with the interstellar medium
Thiem Hoang, A. Lazarian, Blakesley Burkhart, Abraham Loeb
It is a study funded by Breakthrough Starshot examining the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust for spacecraft flying at 0.2 c
https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
Your are good!
That is a paper I picked up a digital copy of recently and it does cover the interstellar dust issue.
Not what I was looking for or thought of as the source for treating the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious, however, after a brief review it may even be that it was the right paper that came to mind, but not where the issue of dismissing the ship's kinetic energy as fictitious originated. I will have to think and work on that a bit more.
For the time being, best anyone who cares should just take the fictiticious kinetic energy comments as my own and badly conveyed.
I am not sure what you read but I am guessing that it was doing calculations in an accelerating reference frame, which requires "fictitious" forces that do "fictitious" work. Here is a paper that discusses this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2560.pdf
The use of the word fictitious is unfortunate, because it is unrelated to the colloquial definition, and the forces themselves are quite real when you are in a rotating reference frame. The Coriolis force and centrifugal force are examples. Also this comic is related: https://xkcd.com/123/
I do also have a copy of that paper and ran across it when trying to find where I came up with treating the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious. But no cigars here either.
Really I think it best to leave things with the last sentence in my last post on the issue. Since January of this year I have been dealing with a situation that has had a significant impact on my ability, and perhaps the patience required, to spend the time and effort most of these papers deserve. Considering the circumstances it would not be unreasonable to assume that I might even at times have difficulty separating my own random associations while reading a technical paper or report with the report itself.
What I am getting at is that even though I have a clear memory of having read a report/paper that treated the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious, I also recognize that it is entirely possible that, that is a false memory conflating my own random thoughts and extrapolations with the content of the paper I was reading at the time. In the future I will attempt to dig out the reference before posting, when possible.
I still feel that (without reference) the kinetic energy of a rocket (spaceship or even EMDrive), as defined from any frame of reference other than that of the rocket, has nothing to do with how the rocket's propulsion system functions. The rate and results of combustion are not affected by the rocket's velocity associated kinetic energy.
-
Monomorphic -
The comment that the fields in your simulation of Shawyer's new frustrum are above the breakdown potential gradient in dry air doesn't seem to have got a lot of airtime, but it does seem that the whole solution can't be valid because of that.
Are these runs being done with the cavity implicitly vacuum? Does FEKO allow the cavity to be filled with air as a dielectric, and can it compute the consequences of breakdown in that case?
-
Gilbertdrive -
I too considered that P/v might be a maximum for thrust, but dismissed the idea because I thought it was frame dependent. The only way I could see to have a thrust level low enough to be valid in any frame was to have thrust below P/c.
The frame dependence is most acute at low velocities: one can multiply P/v by large factors, with no material change to P from relativistic effects, just by changing to a frame moving at a few cm/s.
-
I do also have a copy of that paper and ran across it when trying to find where I came up with treating the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious. But no cigars here either.
Really I think it best to leave things with the last sentence in my last post on the issue. Since January of this year I have been dealing with a situation that has had a significant impact on my ability, and perhaps the patience required, to spend the time and effort most of these papers deserve. Considering the circumstances it would not be unreasonable to assume that I might even at times have difficulty separating my own random associations while reading a technical paper or report with the report itself.
What I am getting at is that even though I have a clear memory of having read a report/paper that treated the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious, I also recognize that it is entirely possible that, that is a false memory conflating my own random thoughts and extrapolations with the content of the paper I was reading at the time. In the future I will attempt to dig out the reference before posting, when possible.
I still feel that (without reference) the kinetic energy of a rocket (spaceship or even EMDrive), as defined from any frame of reference other than that of the rocket, has nothing to do with how the rocket's propulsion system functions. The rate and results of combustion are not affected by the rocket's velocity associated kinetic energy.
Ask to the dinosaurians if the Kinetic energy of the asteroid that killed them was fictitious.
The Kinetic Energy is a given referential is very concrete when there is a collision.
For example, the Kinetic Energy of an asteroid in the earth referential is very relevant when the asteroid hit the earth.
If somebody shots on me, the Kinetic energy of the bullet in my reference frame will seem very relevant of my point of view. :P
The fact that the Kinetic Energy is frame dependent does not means at all that it is not very usefull, and relevant.
Anyway, in GR, everything has frame dependance. That is why the name of relativity because almost everything is relative to a reference frame.
The time is frame dependent.
The distances are frame dependent (an observer that cross the solar system at 0,9C will see smaller distances)
The speeds are frame dependent. (and that is because of that that the Kinetic Energy is frame dependant)
The relativistic mass are frame dependent.
The rest mass is not.
With your way of thinking, almost everything would be fictitious.
The only thing not fictitious that I could ask to a girl about her would be her rest mass. Not sure it is the best thing to do. ;D
Also, it is true that the rate and results of combusion are not affected by the Kinetic Energy of a rocket, but that is taking the things in the wrong way. That is the Kinetic Energy of the rocket that is directly affected by the rate of the combustion. A sugar rocket will get less Kinetic Energy than a metane/Lox rocket.
That is also true that the consideration of the rocket alone in the earth referential is not adapted, you have to take into account the rocket propellant.
-
Gilbertdrive -
I too considered that P/v might be a maximum for thrust, but dismissed the idea because I thought it was frame dependent. The only way I could see to have a thrust level low enough to be valid in any frame was to have thrust below P/c.
The frame dependence is most acute at low velocities: one can multiply P/v by large factors, with no material change to P from relativistic effects, just by changing to a frame moving at a few cm/s.
I do not claim that P/V is necessary a maximum for thrust. I claim 3 points.
1) No experiment showed more thrust than P/V, V taken in the laboratory reference frame.
2) If it is possible to gret more thrust than P/V in a laboratory, that it is a new way of producting energy. I do not postulate the Emdrive to be isolated, so I will not tell it is free energy. But it is at least a new energy bonanza.
3)If we admitt than thrust is constant for constant power, it would dismiss many theories. I do not see why to dismiss these theories, since 1).
-
RE: Universal Propulsion
I have to say I found this announcement overall negative. When Shawyer says he is working with a UK Aerospace Company, and it turns out to be a man with a garage and a lot of ambition instead of BAe or a similar corporation, I am disappointed. Firstly, no credibility is lent to his cause by his partner. Secondly, his earlier statement was accurate but misleading. I think this revelation moves my swing-o-meter a little towards the delusional/crooked end of the spectrum. He needs to be much more careful with his language - even 'small UK aerospace company' or 'UK aerospace startup' would have been much more honest.
I guess the one good point is that no-one will be arguing about spurious thermal effects if an EMDrone actually flies...
-
RE: Universal Propulsion
I have to say I found this announcement overall negative. When Shawyer says he is working with a UK Aerospace Company, and it turns out to be a man with a garage and a lot of ambition instead of BAe or a similar corporation, I am disappointed. Firstly, no credibility is lent to his cause by his partner. Secondly, his earlier statement was accurate but misleading. I think this revelation moves my swing-o-meter a little towards the delusional/crooked end of the spectrum. He needs to be much more careful with his language - even 'small UK aerospace company' or 'UK aerospace startup' would have been much more honest.
I guess the one good point is that no-one will be arguing about spurious thermal effects if an EMDrone actually flies...
True, but an effect type MHD would be still be possible. It would be at least a revolution on earth, but not necessarily usable in space.
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
What order of magnitude for the weight of the jetless winged drone ? What order of thrust ?
Say 50kg thrust or 500N which at specific force 10, 000N/kWrf would need 50Wrf.
-
Well, it's friday morning, I swear nothing stronger than tea has passed my lips for more than 24 hours, and yet still I think it's about time to provoke some weekend fun, with a hypothesis 'du jour'.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Anyway: I know this is not an 'explanation' of the EMdrive or Dark Matter, but it does have explanatory power and more than a hint of Occam's razor about it. When we look for dark matter and find nothing, the answer is obvious if slightly tautologous - 'nothing' has mass....
I guess now is when I'm told about the glaring mistake...
-
Well, it's friday morning, I swear nothing stronger than tea has passed my lips for more than 24 hours, and yet still I think it's about time to provoke some weekend fun, with a hypothesis 'du jour'.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Anyway: I know this is not an 'explanation' of the EMdrive or Dark Matter, but it does have explanatory power and more than a hint of Occam's razor about it. When we look for dark matter and find nothing, the answer is obvious if slightly tautologous - 'nothing' has mass....
I guess now is when I'm told about the glaring mistake...
Why not ? I love theories.
But I am not sure I have understood all the implications of this theory. For example, I do not see the link between 3 and 4. The fact that the mass density is uniform should not justify that there is no gravity effect. (The vacuum catastrophe)
Also, I am not sure than 3 and 6 are compatible. If any non uniformity of the quantuum vacuum dissipates quickly, it would be logical that the dark momentum also dissipates quickly.
By The Way, a general question about Quantuum Vacuum. Is there an experimental evidence that the density of Quantuum vacuum is the same in deep space than in laboratory on earth ?
For example, the density of Quantuum Vacuum is lower between 2 mirrors (the casimir effect)
Should it be compatible with known experiments that the density of Quantuum vacuum is lower in deep space ? I know it is not supposed to be the case, but is it also against experimental evidence ?
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
What order of magnitude for the weight of the jetless winged drone ? What order of thrust ?
Say 50kg thrust or 500N which at specific force 10, 000N/kWrf would need 50Wrf.
And the mass of the device/mass of the drone ?
-
I do also have a copy of that paper and ran across it when trying to find where I came up with treating the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious. But no cigars here either.
Really I think it best to leave things with the last sentence in my last post on the issue. Since January of this year I have been dealing with a situation that has had a significant impact on my ability, and perhaps the patience required, to spend the time and effort most of these papers deserve. Considering the circumstances it would not be unreasonable to assume that I might even at times have difficulty separating my own random associations while reading a technical paper or report with the report itself.
What I am getting at is that even though I have a clear memory of having read a report/paper that treated the kinetic energy of a spaceship as fictitious, I also recognize that it is entirely possible that, that is a false memory conflating my own random thoughts and extrapolations with the content of the paper I was reading at the time. In the future I will attempt to dig out the reference before posting, when possible.
I still feel that (without reference) the kinetic energy of a rocket (spaceship or even EMDrive), as defined from any frame of reference other than that of the rocket, has nothing to do with how the rocket's propulsion system functions. The rate and results of combustion are not affected by the rocket's velocity associated kinetic energy.
Ask to the dinosaurians if the Kinetic energy of the asteroid that killed them was fictitious.
The Kinetic Energy is a given referential is very concrete when there is a collision.
For example, the Kinetic Energy of an asteroid in the earth referential is very relevant when the asteroid hit the earth.
If somebody shots on me, the Kinetic energy of the bullet in my reference frame will seem very relevant of my point of view. :P
The fact that the Kinetic Energy is frame dependent does not means at all that it is not very usefull, and relevant.
Anyway, in GR, everything has frame dependance. That is why the name of relativity because almost everything is relative to a reference frame.
The time is frame dependent.
The distances are frame dependent (an observer that cross the solar system at 0,9C will see smaller distances)
The speeds are frame dependent. (and that is because of that that the Kinetic Energy is frame dependant)
The relativistic mass are frame dependent.
The rest mass is not.
With your way of thinking, almost everything would be fictitious.
The only thing not fictitious that I could ask to a girl about her would be her rest mass. Not sure it is the best thing to do. ;D
Also, it is true that the rate and results of combusion are not affected by the Kinetic Energy of a rocket, but that is taking the things in the wrong way. That is the Kinetic Energy of the rocket that is directly affected by the rate of the combustion. A sugar rocket will get less Kinetic Energy than a metane/Lox rocket.
That is also true that the consideration of the rocket alone in the earth referential is not adapted, you have to take into account the rocket propellant.
Kinetic energy is important to collisions. For the case of rockets and even EMDrives being discussed any frame dependent kinetic energy they gain after take off is not related to either colliding with the earth.
You mention relativistic mass which is far closer to my point. On that I refer you to the following...
The Concept of Mass, by Lev Okun http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p31to36.pdf
And
On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass, by Gary Oas https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110
A bullet does not gain mass because it is moving. Even the discussion over the concept that heat adds to an object's mass is theoretical, and if true unmeasureable at present.
Most of the debate about the velocity and acceleration related aspects of a rocket or EMDrive, does not require the inclusion of kinetic energy associated with velocity or acceleration. In the case of a rocket, the propellant combusts in the rocket's frame of reference and any kinetic energy associated with the rocket's velocity relative to any inertial frame of reference (other than the rockets should it be in an inertial state), does not change the energy or force the rocket drives from the fuel's combustion. To the extent that the combustion chamber is not fully contained, it could be argued that at some rate of acceleration the rocket would be moving away from the point of combustion fast enough to adversely affect efficiency, but I am unsure a chemical rock could produce that kind of acceleration even in deep space.
It seems to me that kinetic energy was introduced in attempts to address the issues of conservation of momentum CoM and conservation of energy CoE. From frames of reference other than that of the rocket or EMDrive. That would only be relevant if one attempts to harvest energy from the acceleration or acquired velocity, within the context of a lab or the earth's frame. Once the system (rocket or EMDrive), is separated from our preferred inertial frame, the earth, either by distance or having reached escape velocity, it would take additional work to do the harvesting.
-
Good morning guys,
Intreview with Rorger Shawyer went live. There is really a lot of interesting information there!
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
-
Kinetic energy is important to collisions. For the case of rockets and even EMDrives being discussed any frame dependent kinetic energy they gain after take off is not related to either colliding with the earth.
You mention relativistic mass which is far closer to my point. On that I refer you to the following...
The Concept of Mass, by Lev Okun http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p31to36.pdf
And
On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass, by Gary Oas https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110
A bullet does not gain mass because it is moving. Even the discussion over the concept that heat adds to an object's mass is theoretical, and if true unmeasureable at present.
Most of the debate about the velocity and acceleration related aspects of a rocket or EMDrive, does not require the inclusion of kinetic energy associated with velocity or acceleration. In the case of a rocket, the propellant combusts in the rocket's frame of reference and any kinetic energy associated with the rocket's velocity relative to any inertial frame of reference (other than the rockets should it be in an inertial state), does not change the energy or force the rocket drives from the fuel's combustion. To the extent that the combustion chamber is not fully contained, it could be argued that at some rate of acceleration the rocket would be moving away from the point of combustion fast enough to adversely affect efficiency, but I am unsure a chemical rock could produce that kind of acceleration even in deep space.
It seems to me that kinetic energy was introduced in attempts to address the issues of conservation of momentum CoM and conservation of energy CoE. From frames of reference other than that of the rocket or EMDrive. That would only be relevant if one attempts to harvest energy from the acceleration or acquired velocity, within the context of a lab or the earth's frame. Once the system (rocket or EMDrive), is separated from our preferred inertial frame, the earth, either by distance or having reached escape velocity, it would take additional work to do the harvesting.
Even if I remove the relativistic mass from the list, it still makes many things fictititous in your way of thinking.
An Emship can go at alpha century, and come back and hit the earth. At this moment, according to you, the Kinetic Energy is relevant.
Since an encounter is one day possible, the Kinetic energy has to be relevant during all the way.
Kinetic Energy, even if it is frame dependent, is something very usefull in physics, and that is perfectly consistent. So, it can be calculated.
Also, you are right saying that you do not need to use CoE when you calculate the trajectory of a rocket. If you read carefully what has been written, we do not use CoE to calculate the trajectory. We describe how the rocket works, in a way that it is perfectly consistent with CoE.
Also, the Kinetic Energy in a reference frame is only defined by the speed in this reference frame, and the mass.
If you think that Kinetic Energy is ficticitous, that means that speed is also fictitious.
I realy do not see the point. Why something frame dependent would be fictitious ?
In fact, I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word fictitious. It is too vague.
Can you tell what this word implies ?
For example :
-Useless ?
-inconsistent ?
-incoherent ?
Or something else ?
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Uncut interview:
https://youtu.be/KUX8EWxmS3k
JV with Gilo Industries confirmef.
-
Monomorphic -
The comment that the fields in your simulation of Shawyer's new frustrum are above the breakdown potential gradient in dry air doesn't seem to have got a lot of airtime, but it does seem that the whole solution can't be valid because of that.
Are these runs being done with the cavity implicitly vacuum? Does FEKO allow the cavity to be filled with air as a dielectric, and can it compute the consequences of breakdown in that case?
FEKO assumes a vacuum. I could fill the cavity with a dialectric with the properties of air, but I do not believe FEKO computes the consequences of breakdown.
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
I liked Roger's comment about internet trolls. ;D
-
I am a bit sad to hear the confirmation of the right-out abusive language he had to endure.
Call me naive, but i never understood it : You can perfectly disagree with people in a polite and even constructive way... so, why does it have to be hateful and destructive?
Regardless whether it is a greatest invention or the greatest hoax of the 21th century, there is never a reason to attack somebody on a personal level. Challenge his theories, question his experimental results, but it is a very very low form of skepticism when you have to resort to personal attacks to tear down an idea or claim.
However, the video did not change my skepticism and that will remain so, till I can really see a working EMdrive that can only be explained through an EM effect (whatever that may be).
Like most people inhere, I keep an open mind to it, patiently waiting, but I want to see clear, crisp results...
-
EmDrive works.
Roger's theory works.
Accept it.
Get over it.
Move on.
There is nothing "to get over", simply because I'm not against it...
Words and claims are cheap these days, but show us that it works...and I'll gladly embrace it. :)
You still don't get it do you?
A lot of people inhere are NOT against the EMdrive. They just don't want to jump the gun, based upon inconclusive "evidence" or what might "possibly be a valid signal".
The reason why we/I keep discussing it inhere is because there is that intriguing possibility that it might indeed work.
But...Skepticism is an absolute requirement for scientific rigor. period.
You may not like it, but it is a very needed obstacle on your path, to ensure that you're going in the right direction...
If it wasn't for my obvious lack of knowledge on electronics, I would have started building myself more then a year ago. Just to satisfy my curiosity, because I do find it a very intriguing concept. But as often warned inhere, if you're not knowing what you're doing , it is better not to start a DIY build...And that's exactly why I didn't...
so really, all I want is to see a working setup that has addressed all of the previous remarks and Roger/you/or any other DIY will get all the thumbs up he/she deserves from me...
-
Kinetic energy is important to collisions. For the case of rockets and even EMDrives being discussed any frame dependent kinetic energy they gain after take off is not related to either colliding with the earth.
You mention relativistic mass which is far closer to my point. On that I refer you to the following...
The Concept of Mass, by Lev Okun http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p31to36.pdf
And
On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass, by Gary Oas https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110
A bullet does not gain mass because it is moving. Even the discussion over the concept that heat adds to an object's mass is theoretical, and if true unmeasureable at present.
Most of the debate about the velocity and acceleration related aspects of a rocket or EMDrive, does not require the inclusion of kinetic energy associated with velocity or acceleration. In the case of a rocket, the propellant combusts in the rocket's frame of reference and any kinetic energy associated with the rocket's velocity relative to any inertial frame of reference (other than the rockets should it be in an inertial state), does not change the energy or force the rocket drives from the fuel's combustion. To the extent that the combustion chamber is not fully contained, it could be argued that at some rate of acceleration the rocket would be moving away from the point of combustion fast enough to adversely affect efficiency, but I am unsure a chemical rock could produce that kind of acceleration even in deep space.
It seems to me that kinetic energy was introduced in attempts to address the issues of conservation of momentum CoM and conservation of energy CoE. From frames of reference other than that of the rocket or EMDrive. That would only be relevant if one attempts to harvest energy from the acceleration or acquired velocity, within the context of a lab or the earth's frame. Once the system (rocket or EMDrive), is separated from our preferred inertial frame, the earth, either by distance or having reached escape velocity, it would take additional work to do the harvesting.
Even if I remove the relativistic mass from the list, it still makes many things fictititous in your way of thinking.
An Emship can go at alpha century, and come back and hit the earth. At this moment, according to you, the Kinetic Energy is relevant.
Since an encounter is one day possible, the Kinetic energy has to be relevant during all the way.
Kinetic Energy, even if it is frame dependent, is something very usefull in physics, and that is perfectly consistent. So, it can be calculated.
Also, you are right saying that you do not need to use CoE when you calculate the trajectory of a rocket. If you read carefully what has been written, we do not use CoE to calculate the trajectory. We describe how the rocket works, in a way that it is perfectly consistent with CoE.
Also, the Kinetic Energy in a reference frame is only defined by the speed in this reference frame, and the mass.
If you think that Kinetic Energy is ficticitous, that means that speed is also fictitious.
I realy do not see the point. Why something frame dependent would be fictitious ?
In fact, I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word fictitious. It is too vague.
Can you tell what this word implies ?
For example :
-Useless ?
-inconsistent ?
-incoherent ?
Or something else ?
Forget the word fictitious. In a response to Dr. Rodal and I think again to meberbs, I admitted that I could not recall the reference I thought it came from and that my use was not clear... or words to that effect.
For now I would say unnecessary to overly complicating, for the discussion.
Neglecting the effect of gravity you can calculate the rate of acceleration with nothing more than the mass and force involved. The acceleration/velocity dependent kinetic energy does not change the result. Including it only complicates things, because it is different from different frames of reference... and it is only important when you are evaluating a collision of masses, or if you are assuming an external force of resistance like moving through water or air.., or even friction between the wheels of a car and a road. Even then you must clearly define the resistance.
Gravity is important to the issue of a third stage of a rocket, producing more kinetic energy than earlier stages, because it is the decreasing gravitational resistance that causes the later stages to appear to be more efficient. They are doing work against a diminishing gravitational field.
Since velocity related kinetic energy does not affect the efficiency of combustion, including it in the calculations just complicates any attempt to reconcile CoM/CoE.
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
What order of magnitude for the weight of the jetless winged drone ? What order of thrust ?
Say 50kg thrust or 500N which at specific force 10, 000N/kWrf would need 50Wrf.
I keep seeing you mention this number, however; if anyone had achieved that specific force we wouldn't still be arguing about whether or not the signal is an anomaly.
-
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
The Egan analysis is a work of fiction that does not recognise the guide wavelength alters as the frustum diameter alters and worse still that the EmWave momemtum alters as the guide wavelength alters.
Egan did a derivation directly from Maxwell's equations (the same ones Cullen used), and you have never pointed out a single flaw in the derivation. And unlike your statement, he does find that there is a different force on the end walls, he just also finds that there is an exactly balancing force on the sidewalls. Anyone with experience working in electromagnetism would recognize that there would be an expectation of force on the side walls as well.
A response from THE man himself. Very prompt too. You must be watching these forums very closely!
So you are saying the device doesn't scale? lol. btw-- thank you for correcting me, I thought I had a eureka moment in understanding the device. Obviously, less than amateur enthusiast here!!
Maybe General Relativity is involved and your Eureka moment is correct. General Relativity (and several other possible effects) would make this an open system, which would nullify all the conservation of energy arguments being made in NSF pages that deal with conservation of energy as a closed system and ignoring gravitational effects.
The conservation of energy arguments being made would be like somebody claiming that a Gravity Assist maneuver is impossible, because a spacecraft considered as a closed system, where gravity is ignored, would be breaking conservation of energy in a swing-by maneuver.
I just wanted to clarify what Shawyer maintains, and in no way do I now or I have ever agreed with Shawyer's explanation :)
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
2.
Q. How can a net force be produced by a closed waveguide?
A. At the propagation velocities (greater than one tenth the speed of light) the effects of special relativity must be considered. Different reference planes have to be used for the EM wave and the waveguide itself. The thruster is therefore an open system and a net force can be produced.
To show a systems is open, all you have to do is point out something else it interacts with or show something entering or leaving the system.
Shawer does not do this, so the first part of the statement might as well be "the sky is blue." It does nothing to show that the emDrive is an open system. (other theoriesthan Shawyer's point out ways for the emDrive to be an open system, but these require new physics that Shawyer doesn't think is necessary.
An EmDrive generates 2 forces that can be measures but not at the same time nor with the same test setup:
1) Thrust force with a vector small to big that is the result of the differential radiation pressure on the end plates. This is a static force that can be measured with a scale.
2) Reaction force with a vector big to small and is the equal but opposite force to the Thrust force. This is a dynamic force and can only be measured during free acceleration.
Roger has measured both forces and has shown that they are approx equal in force amplitude but opposite in force vector direction.
You don't seem to understand what a force is.
Let's go with a simple mechanical analogue that produces the exact same types of forces that Shawyer claims (assuming there is no force on the sidewalls and the EM waves somehow change momentum as they travel down the cavity without transferring that momentum to the cavity):
-Take a cart with wheels on it that let it roll without negligible friction.
-Put a small plate on the front end and a large plate on the back end (plate size doesn't actually matter except for keeping track which end corresponds to which end of the emDrive)
-Have some device in the middle not attached to the cart that bounces rubber balls off of the plates.
-The device bounces low momentum balls off of the small plate and high momentum balls off of the large plate, catching them on the rebound to change their momentum before firing them again
-External forces move the device to keep the device in between the plates moving however the cart moves and balancing momentum from the balls it catches.
So in this system (which is not difficult to set up and test) which direction would the cart move in?
How would you describe the forces involved?
-
Kinetic energy is important to collisions. For the case of rockets and even EMDrives being discussed any frame dependent kinetic energy they gain after take off is not related to either colliding with the earth.
You mention relativistic mass which is far closer to my point. On that I refer you to the following...
The Concept of Mass, by Lev Okun http://www.hysafe.org/science/KareemChin/PhysicsToday_v42_p31to36.pdf
And
On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass, by Gary Oas https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110
A bullet does not gain mass because it is moving. Even the discussion over the concept that heat adds to an object's mass is theoretical, and if true unmeasureable at present.
Most of the debate about the velocity and acceleration related aspects of a rocket or EMDrive, does not require the inclusion of kinetic energy associated with velocity or acceleration. In the case of a rocket, the propellant combusts in the rocket's frame of reference and any kinetic energy associated with the rocket's velocity relative to any inertial frame of reference (other than the rockets should it be in an inertial state), does not change the energy or force the rocket drives from the fuel's combustion. To the extent that the combustion chamber is not fully contained, it could be argued that at some rate of acceleration the rocket would be moving away from the point of combustion fast enough to adversely affect efficiency, but I am unsure a chemical rock could produce that kind of acceleration even in deep space.
It seems to me that kinetic energy was introduced in attempts to address the issues of conservation of momentum CoM and conservation of energy CoE. From frames of reference other than that of the rocket or EMDrive. That would only be relevant if one attempts to harvest energy from the acceleration or acquired velocity, within the context of a lab or the earth's frame. Once the system (rocket or EMDrive), is separated from our preferred inertial frame, the earth, either by distance or having reached escape velocity, it would take additional work to do the harvesting.
Even if I remove the relativistic mass from the list, it still makes many things fictititous in your way of thinking.
An Emship can go at alpha century, and come back and hit the earth. At this moment, according to you, the Kinetic Energy is relevant.
Since an encounter is one day possible, the Kinetic energy has to be relevant during all the way.
Kinetic Energy, even if it is frame dependent, is something very usefull in physics, and that is perfectly consistent. So, it can be calculated.
Also, you are right saying that you do not need to use CoE when you calculate the trajectory of a rocket. If you read carefully what has been written, we do not use CoE to calculate the trajectory. We describe how the rocket works, in a way that it is perfectly consistent with CoE.
Also, the Kinetic Energy in a reference frame is only defined by the speed in this reference frame, and the mass.
If you think that Kinetic Energy is ficticitous, that means that speed is also fictitious.
I realy do not see the point. Why something frame dependent would be fictitious ?
In fact, I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word fictitious. It is too vague.
Can you tell what this word implies ?
For example :
-Useless ?
-inconsistent ?
-incoherent ?
Or something else ?
Forget the word fictitious. In a response to Dr. Rodal and I think again to meberbs, I admitted that I could not recall the reference I thought it came from and that my use was not clear... or words to that effect.
For now I would say unnecessary to overly complicating, for the discussion.
Neglecting the effect of gravity you can calculate the rate of acceleration with nothing more than the mass and force involved. The acceleration/velocity dependent kinetic energy does not change the result. Including it only complicates things, because it is different from different frames of reference... and it is only important when you are evaluating a collision of masses, or if you are assuming an external force of resistance like moving through water or air.., or even friction between the wheels of a car and a road. Even then you must clearly define the resistance.
Gravity is important to the issue of a third stage of a rocket, producing more kinetic energy than earlier stages, because it is the decreasing gravitational resistance that causes the later stages to appear to be more efficient. They are doing work against a diminishing gravitational field.
Since velocity related kinetic energy does not affect the efficiency of combustion, including it in the calculations just complicates any attempt to reconcile CoM/CoE.
I better understand now.
Kinetic Energy is still usefull to verify that there was no miscalculation. Even if there is no imminent collision, it can be calculated to verify the calculus that has been done before.
About the upper stage, the question was about it's Kinetic energy, and an apparent paradox (that was solved)
By definition, we can not solve an apparent paradox about Kinetic energy without speaking of Kinetic Energy. :)
And there was nothing complicate about CoE and COM and upper stage. Just have to take into account the Kinetic energy of the propellant. Nothing to do with gravity well. At the opposite, even for the upper stage, the Gravity well lowers the final Kinetic Energy, and the apparent paradox was that this final Kinetic energy was higher than expected. So, the diminishing gravitational field was not the explanation. At the opposite, the paradox was bigger if it was taken into account !
I do not understand how you can say that
Since velocity related kinetic energy does not affect the efficiency of combustion, including it in the calculations just complicates any attempt to reconcile CoM/CoE.
You just can not evaluate if something respect CoE without taking into account Kinetic Energy. Of course, even if you do not speak about Kinetic Energy, and apply mecanics, the result will still respect CoE, but you can not discuss the satisfaction of CoE without taking into account Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is not, in this precise case, a complication, it is the main point.
-
....
I better understand now.
Kinetic Energy is still usefull to verify that there was no miscalculation. Even if there is no imminent collision, it can be calculated to verify the calculus that has been done before.
About the upper stage, the question was about it's Kinetic energy, and an apparent paradox (that was solved)
By definition, we can not solve an apparent paradox about Kinetic energy without speaking of Kinetic Energy. :)
And there was nothing complicate about CoE and COM and upper stage. Just have to take into account the Kinetic energy of the propellant. Nothing to do with gravity well. At the opposite, even for the upper stage, the Gravity well lowers the final Kinetic Energy, and the apparent paradox was that this final Kinetic energy was higher than expected. So, the diminishing gravitational field was not the explanation. At the opposite, the paradox was bigger if it was taken into account !
I do not understand how you can say that
Since velocity related kinetic energy does not affect the efficiency of combustion, including it in the calculations just complicates any attempt to reconcile CoM/CoE.
You just can not evaluate if something respect CoE without taking into account Kinetic Energy. Of course, even if you do not speak about Kinetic Energy, and apply mecanics, the result will still respect CoE, but you can not discuss the satisfaction of CoE without taking into account Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is not, in this precise case, a complication, it is the main point.
Trying to simplify it as much as possible...
You launch a rocket from earth toward mars. If you calculate its kinetic energy from the frames of reference of; the earth, moon, sun, and mars etc., you get different values. Even values that change constantly over time. And in all frames the fuel consumption is the same and the force and accelerations, as experienced in the rocket's frame of reference winds up the same. Even the time the trip takes in all frames winds up the same. Relativistic effect are insignificantly small at the velocities, distance and time involved.
The kinetic energy will always balance out because it is the product of the mass and acceleration of the rocket in its own frame. Adding kinetic energy may be a good exercise mathematically, but it is unnecessary and over complicates the process, when it is certain that CoM and CoE are conserved in the rocket's frame where the kinetic energy is zero, it is conserved in all frames.
Your third stage argument falls apart if you take gravity out of the picture. It is not a real world problem. As the rocket moves out of the gravity well less force goes to overcoming gravity and directly toward overcoming inertia. At classical velocities and accelerations inertia is insignificant compared with gravity.
If in the rocket's frame, where there is no kinetic energy to deal with, energy is conserved, and your calculations that include kinetic energy disagree, there is a problem.
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
P.S. If you must evaluate an accelerating rocket from an inertial frame, including kinetic energy may be important, but the results of calculations from the rocket's frame demonstrating CoE, without the introduction of kinetic energy, are valid in all frames.
-
....
I better understand now.
Kinetic Energy is still usefull to verify that there was no miscalculation. Even if there is no imminent collision, it can be calculated to verify the calculus that has been done before.
About the upper stage, the question was about it's Kinetic energy, and an apparent paradox (that was solved)
By definition, we can not solve an apparent paradox about Kinetic energy without speaking of Kinetic Energy. :)
And there was nothing complicate about CoE and COM and upper stage. Just have to take into account the Kinetic energy of the propellant. Nothing to do with gravity well. At the opposite, even for the upper stage, the Gravity well lowers the final Kinetic Energy, and the apparent paradox was that this final Kinetic energy was higher than expected. So, the diminishing gravitational field was not the explanation. At the opposite, the paradox was bigger if it was taken into account !
I do not understand how you can say that
Since velocity related kinetic energy does not affect the efficiency of combustion, including it in the calculations just complicates any attempt to reconcile CoM/CoE.
You just can not evaluate if something respect CoE without taking into account Kinetic Energy. Of course, even if you do not speak about Kinetic Energy, and apply mecanics, the result will still respect CoE, but you can not discuss the satisfaction of CoE without taking into account Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is not, in this precise case, a complication, it is the main point.
Trying to simplify it as much as possible...
You launch a rocket from earth toward mars. If you calculate its kinetic energy from the frames of reference of; the earth, moon, sun, and mars etc., you get different values. Even values that change constantly over time. And in all frames the fuel consumption is the same and the force and accelerations, as experienced in the rocket's frame of reference winds up the same. Even the time the trip takes in all frames winds up the same. Relativistic effect are insignificantly small at the velocities, distance and time involved.
The kinetic energy will always balance out because it is the product of the mass and acceleration of the rocket in its own frame. Adding kinetic energy may be a good exercise mathematically, but it is unnecessary and over complicates the process, when it is certain that CoM and CoE are conserved in the rocket's frame where the kinetic energy is zero, it is conserved in all frames.
Your third stage argument falls apart if you take gravity out of the picture. It is not a real world problem. As the rocket moves out of the gravity well less force goes to overcoming gravity and directly toward overcoming inertia. At classical velocities and accelerations inertia is insignificant compared with gravity.
If in the rocket's frame, where there is no kinetic energy to deal with, energy is conserved, and your calculations that include kinetic energy disagree, there is a problem.
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
P.S. If you must evaluate an accelerating rocket from an inertial frame, including kinetic energy may be important, but the results of calculations from the rocket's frame demonstrating CoE, without the introduction of kinetic energy, are valid in all frames.
This is pretty off topic. How does the third stage of a rocket relate to the emdrive? CoE? I think not. We are unsure if its even an open or a closed system. Debating those things is fine, but not a conventional rocket. The is not NEW PHYSICS. One post, sure.... 3 pages of it? Knock it off please.
-
I have a question (sorry if this has been asked/answered before, I'm new to this forum, and google does not give a definitive answer)... For all known tests that show non-zero thrust, is it always in the same direction? If yes, which direction is that? (i.e. small-to-big or big-to-small)? By "direction of thrust" I mean the direction of force that the EmDrive seems to apply to a measurement device (pendulum, scale, etc).
And a follow-up question: which of the current theories are compatible with this direction without inventing "reaction forces" that can cause the device to accelerate *towards* harder-hitting photons as opposed to away from them?
-
I have a question (sorry if this has been asked/answered before, I'm new to this forum, and google does not give a definitive answer)... For all known tests that show non-zero thrust, is it always in the same direction? If yes, which direction is that? (i.e. small-to-big or big-to-small)? By "direction of thrust" I mean the direction of force that the EmDrive seems to apply to a measurement device (pendulum, scale, etc).
And a follow-up question: which of the current theories are compatible with this direction without inventing "reaction forces" that can cause the device to accelerate *towards* harder-hitting photons as opposed to away from them?
No, no consistent directions. That is a big alarming sign.
-
I have a question (sorry if this has been asked/answered before, I'm new to this forum, and google does not give a definitive answer)... For all known tests that show non-zero thrust, is it always in the same direction? If yes, which direction is that? (i.e. small-to-big or big-to-small)? By "direction of thrust" I mean the direction of force that the EmDrive seems to apply to a measurement device (pendulum, scale, etc).
And a follow-up question: which of the current theories are compatible with this direction without inventing "reaction forces" that can cause the device to accelerate *towards* harder-hitting photons as opposed to away from them?
My understanding is that force has been generated in both directions. However, primarily it is with the small end leading. Theoretically, it has to do with the motion of the CM of the field inside the frustum and which way it moves. There is insufficient data to show that thrust in both directions are not artifacts.
-
I have a question (sorry if this has been asked/answered before, I'm new to this forum, and google does not give a definitive answer)... For all known tests that show non-zero thrust, is it always in the same direction? If yes, which direction is that? (i.e. small-to-big or big-to-small)? By "direction of thrust" I mean the direction of force that the EmDrive seems to apply to a measurement device (pendulum, scale, etc).
And a follow-up question: which of the current theories are compatible with this direction without inventing "reaction forces" that can cause the device to accelerate *towards* harder-hitting photons as opposed to away from them?
QUESTION: << For all known tests that show non-zero thrust, is it always in the same direction? >> ANSWER: No
COMMENT: NASA is the only research group that has unequivocally verified the mode shape being excited in most of their tests: TM212, with an infrared camera (*). For this specific TM212 mode shape, when using a polymer insert at the small end they have verified that both the measured force and the measured displacement, velocity and accelerations are directed in a vector pointing from the big end towards the small end. At NSF, Paul has also reported that he measured forces and displacements in the opposite direction (from the small end towards the big end) for other mode shapes.
(*) For a perfect conductor (Q->Infinity), the TE0np modes being preferred by other researchers can be exactly shown to lead to zero electric fields at all internal surfaces of the frustum of a spherical cone (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1526577#msg1526577). For an imperfect conductor (finite Q) it can be shown that there are very small surface electric fields within the skin depth of the frustum of a cone for TE0np mode shapes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1542032#msg1542032). This makes determination of TE0np mode shapes based on an infrared thermal camera difficult. Additionally, TE mode shapes have been known to be much more difficult to excite than TM modes (see classic books like Collin, for example). Numerical methods like Finite Difference (much inferior to FE with respect to satisfying Neumann BC's along a boundary), and Finite Element packages are known not to be able to exactly satisfy Neumann boundary conditions along a boundary and hence their output for current at the surface for TE modes can be shown to be inaccurate. The Neumann boundary conditions may be satisfied only in an integral sense when using a Finite Element program, rather than everywhere along the boundary (particularly when the Finite Element user does not conduct a convergence test, which is the norm for Finite Element analysis being displayed at NSF. I don't ever recall anybody showing Finite Element results here ever showing a convergence analysis displaying the asymptotic approach to a solution). Furthermore it is well known that Finite Element methods that rely on the Galerkin method (as many commonly used programs do) do not satisfy the Neumann boundary conditions as well as methods based on variational principles, or using mixed methods.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188427;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
-
EmDrive works.
Roger's theory works.
Accept it.
Get over it.
Move on.
There is nothing "to get over", simply because I'm not against it...
Words and claims are cheap these days, but show us that it works...and I'll gladly embrace it. :)
You still don't get it do you?
A lot of people inhere are NOT against the EMdrive. They just don't want to jump the gun, based upon inconclusive "evidence" or what might "possibly be a valid signal".
The reason why we/I keep discussing it inhere is because there is that intriguing possibility that it might indeed work.
But...Skepticism is an absolute requirement for scientific rigor. period.
You may not like it, but it is a very needed obstacle on your path, to ensure that you're going in the right direction...
If it wasn't for my obvious lack of knowledge on electronics, I would have started building myself more then a year ago. Just to satisfy my curiosity, because I do find it a very intriguing concept. But as often warned inhere, if you're not knowing what you're doing , it is better not to start a DIY build...And that's exactly why I didn't...
so really, all I want is to see a working setup that has addressed all of the previous remarks and Roger/you/or any other DIY will get all the thumbs up he/she deserves from me...
When people continuously claim that all the evidence to date is and must be fatally flawed as they keep dreaming up new reasons, they go beyond mere skepticism to being skeptimentalists.
Take a look at the Wiki site ' RF resonant cavities'. It's filled with skeptical remarks. The same remarks repeated four of five times for emphasis. It's totally biased against the EmDrive concept. I hope some experts here will correct many of the misleading statements on the site.
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Uncut interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k
JV with Gilo Industries confirmef.
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices?
-
The extended interview was interesting to watch. The one thing I would comment on is no matter where you stand on the EM drive there is no need for the personal abuse that he alluded to receiving.
-
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices?
That's what was said. The paper is available out there, "IF" you can read Chinese. I have not seen an English translated version.
-
...
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
I attach the last paper by Prof. Juan Yang, so that you can make up your own mind.
Bio:
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1549/7982.htm
Notice that her research on Shawyer's EM Drive is no longer featured among her "Selected Publications" in her official University webpage.
Instead, her research on the conventional, classic Microwave Plasma Thruster, that uses a propellant for thrust, is now featured as among her "Selected Publications".
[Bold and color added for emphasis]
Abstract:In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster,the thrust produced by micro⁃
wave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the mea⁃
surement uncertainty was also studied,thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The re⁃
sults show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN un⁃
der the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14% . Within the measuring range of
three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system,the independent microwave thruster propulsion device
did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ± 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W
microwave power output,and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.
-
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
You did not understand what was the apparent paradox we were debating.
It was not about the upper stage performing better than the booster. We all know that the gravity losses are smaller for the upper stage. Not much because of escaping the gravity well (200km does not change much the gravity field compared to the earth surface) but because of the high horizontal speed of the rocket. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is 0, there is a gravity loss of 1G. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is half the orbital speed, the gravity loss is only 0,5G.
The paradox was :
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy [in form of Kinetic Energy] that the total chemical energy content of the upper stage.
The problem was not that the upper stage performed better than the booster, it was that it seemed to perform overunity. It was a totally different problem that the one you understood.
And it was, since the begining, a paradox exprimed in terms of Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy was the subject of the paradox. That is why it can not be solved without using Kinetic Energy.
This is pretty off topic. How does the third stage of a rocket relate to the emdrive? CoE? I think not. We are unsure if its even an open or a closed system. Debating those things is fine, but not a conventional rocket. The is not NEW PHYSICS. One post, sure.... 3 pages of it? Knock it off please.
I agree with you on the fact that we should not be debating of that. The problem is that OnlyMe and I disagree on what says standard physics.
First Pr Frobnicat showed a CoE problem if the Emdrive was considered as isolated. More recently Merebs, Wicoe, others and I have made explanations for these who did not understood that point.
But, the example of the classical upper stage was given to us, presented as the proof that our statements on CoE and Kinetic Energy were false.
That is why we had to explain why there was no CoE problem with the upper stage apparent paradox, and that the case was totally different of an isolated emdrive.
This debate has taken too much place, and I apologize for having participated to that.
I suggest that if some want to continue debating, we create a topic on that precise point.
May I create it on in General discussion ? I can not logically create in in "New Physics"
Is is possible that a Mod deplace last relevant messages in this new topic ? (In some forums it is possible)
-
...
This debate has taken too much place, and I apologize for having participated to that.
I suggest that if some want to continue debating, we create a topic on that precise point.
May I create it on in General discussion ? I can not logically create in in "New Physics"
Is is possible that a Mod deplace last relevant messages in this new topic ? (In some forums it is possible)
I don't understand why would you need to apologize or move to another section. The debate you, OnlyMe and others (involved in this very interesting discussion) have engaged in is more pertinent to the subject matter <<Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> than many other posts. Your discussion is related to space flight, while several other discussions in this thread have not even been about space flight.
-
This seems most applicable to this thread.
chrislintott – Verified account @chrislintott
Now, @NeilTurok : 'For theory there is nothing better than complete crisis. We are on the brink of overthrowing much of physics'
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrislintott/status/786962615255855104
It was in reference to this talk.
https://www.ras.org.uk/component/gem/?id=454
-
I don't understand why would you need to apologize or move to another section. The debate you, OnlyMe and others (involved in this very interesting discussion) have engaged in is more pertinent to the subject matter <<Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> than many other posts. Your discussion is related to space flight, while several other discussions in this thread have not even been about space flight.
Thanks very much for your support. It is true that the "upper stage apparent paradox" is about space flight, but classical space flight, not an exclusive space flight application for the Emdrive. That is why I can understand the reaction of bmcgaffey20.
-
Well, it's friday morning, I swear nothing stronger than tea has passed my lips for more than 24 hours, and yet still I think it's about time to provoke some weekend fun, with a hypothesis 'du jour'.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Anyway: I know this is not an 'explanation' of the EMdrive or Dark Matter, but it does have explanatory power and more than a hint of Occam's razor about it. When we look for dark matter and find nothing, the answer is obvious if slightly tautologous - 'nothing' has mass....
I guess now is when I'm told about the glaring mistake...
Without considering the entire theory (I already made comments on 2 points earlier today) it gives me the desire to consider the idea that energy could be taken from ZPF, if form of Kinetic energy. Of course, I assume that it is new physics.
It is also about CoE. Yes, again. ;D
If the Emdrive is working by interacting with ZPF, CoE should be considered taking into account the total ZPF energy, and the drive. I suppose I can speak of the total ZPF energy before the Rindler horizon. When the Emdrive gets more Kinetic energy that is spent electric energy, the total ZPF energy should decrease so that CoE is verified.
But, how could this decrease translate ?
The exemple of ZPF decrease that we know is the casimir effect. The ZPF between 2 mirrors is degraded. But as soon as the 2 mirrors are taken apart, it is again intact, and the energy that has been gained when the 2 mirrors have been made close (the work of the casimir force) has to be spent again.
If it is the same with ZPF with the emdrive, how could the ZPF stay degraded, so the energy stolen can be kept ?
If the ZPF return to it's normal state after the Emdrive has crossed it, I see at least 2 solutions.
1 : The energy is taken back to the drive, and it does not work as intended.
2 : The ZPF energy is restored by something outside our visible universe, and therefore it is a source of energy from our point of view. (Stealing energy to more dimensions)
There is a comparison that I like. Maybe our 3 dimensional universe (plus time) is a part of a 4 dimensional universe (plus time)
It would be like a sheet in the wind.
From the viewpoint of a 2 dimentional creature living on the sheet, the wind passing threw the sheed seems like our Quantuum Vacuum.
These 2 dimentional creatures can see molecules of O2 or N2 that appear, and disappear. They can do a theory of Quantum vacuum.
If they find a way of stealing energy to the O2 and N2 molecules during the small time it is here, it is realy energy gained for their sheet universe. It would really violate CoE in the sheet universe, but not in the real 3D universe.
Maybe the same with quantum vacuum. Maybe it would be a real way of getting free energy from our point of view (but not free energy from the viewpoint of the real 4D+time universe)
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Uncut interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k
JV with Gilo Industries confirmef.
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices?
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
I have sources, some info I can share, some not. What I can share I share.
Yang went dark just like Boeing went dark. I believe there is an dark Indian EmDrive project as well as 6 or so commercial projects. However with the now public Gilo Industries JV, some are coming into the light. The release of the patent, the interview & the JV formation are not random acts. Roger & Gilo Industries are moving to be the 1st to open this market & hey replacing Gilo built motors on drones, paraglider & flying cars may be the easy market entry.
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
As an EmDrive developer & builder the Yang paper is rubbish. I sugfest deliberately rubbish to send a clear message to those that understand EmDrive engineering & capability.
-
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
You did not understand what was the apparent paradox we were debating.
It was not about the upper stage performing better than the booster. We all know that the gravity losses are smaller for the upper stage. Not much because of escaping the gravity well (200km does not change much the gravity field compared to the earth surface) but because of the high horizontal speed of the rocket. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is 0, there is a gravity loss of 1G. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is half the orbital speed, the gravity loss is only 0,5G.
The paradox was :
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy [in form of Kinetic Energy] that the total chemical energy content of the upper stage.
The problem was not that the upper stage performed better than the booster, it was that it seemed to perform overunity. It was a totally different problem that the one you understood.
And it was, since the begining, a paradox exprimed in terms of Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy was the subject of the paradox. That is why it can not be solved without using Kinetic Energy.
I have obviously been unclear about my intent. I did understand the initial issue being discussed and thought it had been resolved.
I also saw within that discussion two issues that are important to the EMDrive and generally to any propulsion system that would allow continued thrust during an interplanetary or eventually interstellar context.
The CoE and CoM issues have been around for as long as these threads and are important issues.
Everything we know about CoM and CoE as a matter of direct observation and experiment, has been from within the context of the inertial frame of reference we live in. A functional EMDrive would expand the experimental environment significantly. Both for unmanned and hopefully manned spacecraft.
While there are situations here on earth that kinetic energy is an important component, it is not always necessary when exploring CoM and CoE.
For a manned or unmanned spaceship moving at velocities greater than the escape velocity of any involved gravitational field, the kinetic energy of the spaceship or device would not be an issue.
The experimental environment especially of a manned spacecraft capable of traveling under power between planets and an unmanned craft potentially through interstellar space, would make it possible to directly observe and experimentally test and confirm, what we know of CoM and CoE, as well as many other fundamental aspects of physics, including theoretical predictions of both special and general relativity, under conditions currently beyond our reach.
I do believe that discussions like this one has been, about what seems mundane and settled science, opens the way for a better or perhaps just clearer understanding of the potential, that technological advancements like an EMDrive represent, to broaden the scope and our understanding of fundamental physics itself. It may even turn out that we reach a place where we can explore fundamental physics in greater depth, before we ever work out the physics of the EMDrive itself.
The only thing I would apologize for, is that I have been unable to communicate my thoughts and intent as well as I would like.
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
As an EmDrive developer & builder the Yang paper is rubbish. I sugfest deliberately rubbish to send a clear message to those that understand EmDrive engineering & capability.
Interesting. To what end?
-
Something TT said yesterday about the "time constant" of the Q gave me an idea.
The arguments against the various theories have been;
1. Shawyer claims the wave velocity changes. This is a conjecture that is difficult to prove, and with a perfect conductor, the photon momentum bouncing between walls always SUM to zero force.
2. For Notsosureofit and myself, the argument is that the mode frequency doesn't change. It's a constant. It doesn't shift from the small end to the big end because it's a cavity mode.
3. It's not a wave guide, it's a cavity. It's not a traveling wave, so "Guide wavelength", etc. is inapplicable to a cavity.
My latest attempt still uses the variable frequency approach, but I said a few things in that paper that implied a "decay rate". Well that's where TT's comment about the "time constant" comes in;
The Damping Factor in my paper can be expressed as;
Zeta = 1/tau*w0
where w0 is the frequency and tau is the decay time "constant" (evanescent wave)
Knowing this, I can hold w0 constant. Then, when I take the gradient of Zeta, the frequency doesn't need to shift, the velocity doesn't need to change, the wavelength doesn't need to change. The only thing we need is a gradient in the decay time. A shorter decay time at the big end can provide a gradient, equivalent to that of a lower frequency.... and BINGO!
The EM Drive works 100% due to asymmetrical power dissipation, which is what I've been saying for a very long time. I just didn't know how to model the equations. We are already seeing the effects in FEKO. The highest energy density is at the small end for TE013. If all the forces start out in balance and the field at the big end decays faster. Then, the field will constantly shift (accelerate) toward the big end to refill that space and the frustum will accelerate the other way, to conserve momentum. It's the same gravitational effect as in the paper, the same gradient in the damping factor, but completely due to power dissipation and energy density, not frequency shift.
Todd
-
May I pose a simple thought experiment?
What does an efficient propulsion system meant for superfluid immersion resemble?
For example, a "jet-ski" is an example of coupling between an engine and a fluid, much like a car pushes on the asphalt with its wheels and couples by friction.
Given the properties of a superfluid, how does the metaphor extend? Does providing energy to a superfluid (i.e. heat, for example) provide enough of a gradient to cause movement (w.r.t. to the superfluid's container)? Does non-uniform compression of the medium (i.e. if the superfluid were taken in one end and compressed further, instantiating a pressure gradient before release out the back-end) produce a net forward force (again w.r.t. to its container) in a superfluid, and by what is such a machine limited in theoretical efficiency?
-
Something TT said yesterday about the "time constant" of the Q gave me an idea.
The arguments against the various theories have been;
1. Shawyer claims the wave velocity changes. This is a conjecture that is difficult to prove, and with a perfect conductor, the photon momentum bouncing between walls always SUM to zero force.
2. For Notsosureofit and myself, the argument is that the mode frequency doesn't change. It's a constant. It doesn't shift from the small end to the big end because it's a cavity mode.
3. It's not a wave guide, it's a cavity. It's not a traveling wave, so "Guide wavelength", etc. is inapplicable to a cavity.
My latest attempt still uses the variable frequency approach, but I said a few things in that paper that implied a "decay rate". Well that's where TT's comment about the "time constant" comes in;
The Damping Factor in my paper can be expressed as;
Zeta = 1/tau*w0
where w0 is the frequency and tau is the decay time "constant" (evanescent wave)
Knowing this, I can hold w0 constant. Then, when I take the gradient of Zeta, the frequency doesn't need to shift, the velocity doesn't need to change, the wavelength doesn't need to change. The only thing we need is a gradient in the decay time. A shorter decay time at the big end can provide a gradient, equivalent to that of a lower frequency.... and BINGO!
The EM Drive works 100% due to asymmetrical power dissipation, which is what I've been saying for a very long time. I just didn't know how to model the equations. We are already seeing the effects in FEKO. The highest energy density is at the small end for TE013. If all the forces start out in balance and the field at the big end decays faster. Then, the field will constantly shift (accelerate) toward the big end to refill that space and the frustum will accelerate the other way, to conserve momentum. It's the same gravitational effect as in the paper, the same gradient in the damping factor, but completely due to power dissipation and energy density, not frequency shift.
Todd
Todd,
You might be interested in the attached curve which shows what meep calculates as the energy density at the drive frequency within a cavity resonating in the TE013 mode. Big end is negative, -0.4 and small end is positive. Everything is in "meep units," or natural units with distance scaled to 0.3 meters/unit. What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
EDIT: Replace Poynting Vector with Maxwell Stress Tensor.
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
You agree that the "integral of the Poynting vector SA= E x H
over equal sized squares" is equal to the Energy density (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/4/9f4863b7b26ba2e74d98774ebdec04bf.png)???
Can you explain that?
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
Since when is the "integral of the Poynting vector over equal sized squares" equal to the Energy density ???
Can you explain that?
Hahaha, probably not, but I thought I knew what he meant. Poynting vector is W/m^2, which is Energy density times velocity, and we know what that is. ::)
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
Since when is the "integral of the Poynting vector over equal sized squares" equal to the Energy density ???
Can you explain that?
Hahaha, probably not, but I thought I knew what he meant. Poynting vector is W/m^2, which is Energy density times velocity, and we know what that is. ::)
The statement <<the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density>> is not even dimensionally correct,
where Poynting vector S = E x H
and
energy density (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/4/9f4863b7b26ba2e74d98774ebdec04bf.png)
A correct statement would be, for example, that the boundary integral of the Poynting vector over the surface boundary of a volume V, equals the negative of the power (not the power density), if the volume integral of the current density J and the electric field E is zero, integrated over the volume V.
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
You can simplify further by noticing that
(1/tau)dtau/dr = d(Ln tau)/dr
so the thrust depends on the rate of change of the natural Logarithm of tau with respect to r
(times - P, divided by 2*omegao)
Here is a picture of the natural log (the rate of change changes a lot for small tau, but changes little for large tau, but one has to know the dependence of tau on r to make quantitative statements ...):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Log.svg/300px-Log.svg.png)
Notice that the relationship for Q is also the rate of a log of Q with respect to r
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
Thrust of the levels reported in the experiments? (Greater than a photon rocket)
CoE / CoM issues? Or are we still tapping into forces outside the cavity, be it gravity or the quantum vacuum?
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
You can simplify further by noticing that
(1/tau)dtau/dr = d(Ln tau)/dr
so the thrust depends on the rate of change of the natural Logarithm of tau with respect to r
(times - P, divided by 2*omegao)
Here is a picture of the natural log (the rate of change changes a lot for small tau, but changes little for large tau, but one has to know the dependence of tau on r ...):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Log.svg/300px-Log.svg.png)
Notice that the relationship for Q is also the rate of a log of Q with respect to r
True, but the way I have it written, it is more obvious that the "force" is dependent on P/2v, where v = -dr/dtau.
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
You agree that the "integral of the Poynting vector SA= E x H
over equal sized squares" is equal to the Energy density (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/4/9f4863b7b26ba2e74d98774ebdec04bf.png)???
Can you explain that?
I miss quoted - it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
aero
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
Thrust of the levels reported in the experiments? (Greater than a photon rocket)
CoE / CoM issues? Or are we still tapping into forces outside the cavity, be it gravity or the quantum vacuum?
As Dr. Rodal is pointing out, we do not know the dependence of tau on r. If we control that, then the thrust levels will be just an engineering problem.
Yes, it will be greater than a photon rocket, because F = P/2v, where v = -dr/dtau, and we will "control" this derivative by design. (I hope.)
No CoE or CoM issues. It works like gravity. The energy input has a potential energy, which is m*g*L. Energy escapes the frustum into the metal through heat dissipation. As it is dissipated, the CM of the internal field moves from the small end toward the big end, and the CM of the frustum moves the other way. If the energy could not escape, it would be a 1 shot deal, but since energy can escape as heat dissipation, the cycle can be repeated. The frustum can't move forward, unless the energy inside moves backwards and is lost as heat, almost the same as if it escaped out the back, but the velocity is much, much slower, boosting the thrust.
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
You agree that the "integral of the Poynting vector SA= E x H
over equal sized squares" is equal to the Energy density (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/4/9f4863b7b26ba2e74d98774ebdec04bf.png)???
Can you explain that?
I miss quoted - it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
aero
That doesn't make sense either.
Dimensionally, the units of Energy Density are energy per unit volume Energy/Volume or (Force*Length)/Volume, while the units of stress are force per unit area Force/Area. Since Volume = Area * Length, it is obvious therefore that stress and energy density have exactly the same units. (Which is not a coincidence).
So, if you integrate the stress, now you don't even have the same units as energy density.
If you integrate stress over an area, you end up with a unit of force.
If you integrate stress over a curved line, you end up with a unit of force per unit length.
Have to go ........think about it. I'll be back tomorrow ;)
-
...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
You agree that the "integral of the Poynting vector SA= E x H
over equal sized squares" is equal to the Energy density (https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/4/9f4863b7b26ba2e74d98774ebdec04bf.png)???
Can you explain that?
I miss quoted - it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
aero
That doesn't make sense either.
Dimensionally, the units of Energy Density are energy per unit volume Energy/Volume or (Force*Length)/Volume, while the units of stress are force per unit area Force/Area. Since Volume = Area * Length, it is obvious therefore that stress and energy density have exactly the same units. (Which is not a coincidence).
So, if you integrate the stress, now you don't even have the same units as energy density.
If you integrate stress over an area, you end up with a unit of force.
If you integrate stress over a curved line, you end up with a unit of force per unit length.
Have to go ........think about it. I'll be back tomorrow ;)
Here is the details as given in the meep manual, maybe that makes a difference for you.
you can also compute force spectra: forces on an object as a function of frequency, computed by Fourier transforming the fields and integrating the vacuum Maxwell stress tensor
\sigma_{ij} = E_i^*E_j + H_i^*H_j - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left( |\mathbf{E}|^2 + |\mathbf{H}|^2 \right)
over a surface S via \mathbf{F} = \int_S \sigma d\mathbf{A}. We recommend that you normally only evaluate the stress tensor over a surface lying in vacuum, as the interpretation and definition of the stress tensor in arbitrary media is often problematic (the subject of extensive and controversial literature.
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
Thrust of the levels reported in the experiments? (Greater than a photon rocket)
CoE / CoM issues? Or are we still tapping into forces outside the cavity, be it gravity or the quantum vacuum?
As Dr. Rodal is pointing out, we do not know the dependence of tau on r. If we control that, then the thrust levels will be just an engineering problem.
Yes, it will be greater than a photon rocket, because F = P/2v, where v = -dr/dtau, and we will "control" this derivative by design. (I hope.)
No CoE or CoM issues. It works like gravity. The energy input has a potential energy, which is m*g*L. Energy escapes the frustum into the metal through heat dissipation. As it is dissipated, the CM of the internal field moves from the small end toward the big end, and the CM of the frustum moves the other way. If the energy could not escape, it would be a 1 shot deal, but since energy can escape as heat dissipation, the cycle can be repeated. The frustum can't move forward, unless the energy inside moves backwards and is lost as heat, almost the same as if it escaped out the back, but the velocity is much, much slower, boosting the thrust.
How does a dielectric affect the idea your proposing?
-
When I first read that Boeing received a working prototype of the EMDrive, and then didn't follow through with a "lucrative licensing agreement", it made perfect sense to me. Having worked 30+ years at an aerospace company even larger than Boeing, I can tell you that if the prototype demonstrated any thrust whatsoever, it would have have been classified immediately, and Roger would not be allowed to confirm nor deny anything further about that specific device nor any contracts nor agreements related to it.
I remember some disappointment expressed earlier about Roger's companies being focused on terrestrial applications, but I think he made it very clear in the IBT interview that he expects that the general public will become familiar with all of this when autonomous flying cars become available, but that the "much more serious" applications will be related to cheap access to space, especially space-based solar power, which he sees as the answer to energy and environmental problems worldwide.
-
When I first read that Boeing received a working prototype of the EMDrive, and then didn't follow through with a "lucrative licensing agreement", it made perfect sense to me. Having worked 30+ years at an aerospace company even larger than Boeing, I can tell you that if the prototype demonstrated any thrust whatsoever, it would have have been classified immediately, and Roger would not be allowed to confirm nor deny anything further about that specific device nor any contracts nor agreements related to it.
I remember some disappointment expressed earlier about Roger's companies being focused on terrestrial applications, but I think he made it very clear in the IBT interview that he expects that the general public will become familiar with all of this when autonomous flying cars become available, but that the "much more serious" applications will be related to cheap access to space, especially space-based solar power, which he sees as the answer to energy and environmental problems worldwide.
So you are saying that you worked at Lockheed Martin, since they are the only one comparable to Boeing. Northrop is next, but they are definitely smaller than Boeing.
Also, they can't just classify something. Only the government can classify something, and if you had the experience you just claimed, you should know that.
My first reaction when reading that they didn't follow through was also not surprise, because it makes perfect sense that they would check it out, find out it doesn't work as advertised and drop the contract. Claiming "it went dark" and such basically amounts to conspiracy theory unless you have some real evidence to show.
-
Also, they can't[\b] just classify something. Only the government can classify something, and if you had the experience you just claimed, you should know that.
I wasn't saying that Boeing classified it, however, if any part of the technology was already classified, then indeed a Boeing employee could classify the information based on association. That's what "classifiers" do. That said, all government contractors like Boeing have government personnel on-site, representing all of their customers. Getting something entirely new classified because it is recognized as sensitive, could be done very quickly. For that matter, Boeing could also declare it as proprietary information which for all intents and purposes has the same effect as far as Roger's ability to share the information.
No, I think that if the prototype didn't work, Boeing would have said that very clearly. Unless it was already classified ;-)
-
While there are situations here on earth that kinetic energy is an important component, it is not always necessary when exploring CoM and CoE.
Yes on the fact that, for many calculations, you do not need to use Kinetic energy.
Also, for deep space travel, the speed is important in the departure and the arrival reference frame, because it is important to know when we are at destination !
And the speed is as much relative to a reference frame that the Kinetic Energy. Since the rest mass does not move, Kinetic Energy is entirely defined by the speed, and the speed is entirely desined by the Kinetic energy. If one is fiftitious, the other is also.
When you want to explore CoE, you have to do it from a point of view of an inertial reference frame, and you have to take into account the Kinetic energy in this reference frame. You can't do the economy of Kinetic energy when exploring CoE of anything having accelerated from it's original reference frame.
But what is true, and maybe it is what you intended to exprime, is the fact that you do not need to evaluate CoE when actually travelling. In fact, you need to verify CoE essentially when you are unsure of the performance of a device. For example, if one tell me that his LH2/LOX motor send burnt gaz at 20 000m/s, I can calculate easily with CoE that it is not possible, using Kinetic energy of the gaz, and comparing it to the chemical energy of LH2/LOX.
It is simpler than using pressure calculus and expansion in a nozzle...
But, once you know really how your motor perform, you do not need to evaluate CoE anymore. I think I agree with you on that point.
Once we know how the emdrive works, how it is interacting with fields, in what way it performs, it may become useless to verify CoE.
Since we do not know how it works, it is at the opposite important to explore CoE, using Kinetic Energy, because it will give us tracks about theories.
That is why any verified experiment showing more force than P/V would dismiss many possible theories. And we know that because we explorate CoE.
I shall give an example of theory.
If the drive is pushing against the earth by using a new distant interaction, still working from orbit. Doing the same thing that a maglev train on earth, but at bigger distances.
This theory would be dismissed by exploration of CoE if thrust bigger than P/V is measured.
That is why CoE is so important to evaluate in the context of creating new theories. At the opposite, CoE evaluation is not needed for calculating the trajectory of a classical rocket.
-
..
Here is the details as given in the meep manual, maybe that makes a difference for you.
you can also compute force spectra: forces on an object as a function of frequency, computed by Fourier transforming the fields and integrating the vacuum Maxwell stress tensor
\sigma_{ij} = E_i^*E_j + H_i^*H_j - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left( |\mathbf{E}|^2 + |\mathbf{H}|^2 \right)
over a surface S via \mathbf{F} = \int_S \sigma d\mathbf{A}. We recommend that you normally only evaluate the stress tensor over a surface lying in vacuum, as the interpretation and definition of the stress tensor in arbitrary media is often problematic (the subject of extensive and controversial literature.
As I said, a force is the integral of a stress tensor component over a surface area.
The statement in the Meep manual you are quoting now is simply a statement about calculating forces, and not about calculating energy density.
As I said in my previous post, stress and energy density have the same units (which is not a coincidence). A force does not have the same units as energy. Energy has units of force times displacement. Energy density has units of force times displacement over volume, or force over area.
Your statement it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
that the integral of the stress tensor has the same units as energy density is incorrect, and not at all supported by the Meep manual.
Sorry.
-
Also, they can't just classify something. Only the government can classify something, and if you had the experience you just claimed, you should know that.
I wasn't saying that Boeing classified it, however, if any part of the technology was already classified, then indeed a Boeing employee could classify the information based on association. That's what "classifiers" do. That said, all government contractors like Boeing have government personnel on-site, representing all of their customers. Getting something entirely new classified because it is recognized as sensitive, could be done very quickly. For that matter, Boeing could also declare it as proprietary information which for all intents and purposes has the same effect as far as Roger's ability to share the information.
No, I think that if the prototype didn't work, Boeing would have said that very clearly. Unless it was already classified ;-)
The onsite government personnel generally do not have classification authority. Also, they need to be under contract with the government for that before any new information could be treated as classified. If the drive was already classified, and Boeing employees knew about it they wouldn't have needed the original contract with Shawyer to get information about it.
Also, Boeing would still have wanted a follow on contract with Shawyer if they didn't give up on it. Even if it somehow got classified, they can't steal his IP. Please drop this conspiracy theory now, unless you have actual evidence to support your case.
-
Also, they can't[\b] just classify something. Only the government can classify something, and if you had the experience you just claimed, you should know that.
I wasn't saying that Boeing classified it, however, if any part of the technology was already classified, then indeed a Boeing employee could classify the information based on association. That's what "classifiers" do. That said, all government contractors like Boeing have government personnel on-site, representing all of their customers. Getting something entirely new classified because it is recognized as sensitive, could be done very quickly. For that matter, Boeing could also declare it as proprietary information which for all intents and purposes has the same effect as far as Roger's ability to share the information.
No, I think that if the prototype didn't work, Boeing would have said that very clearly. Unless it was already classified ;-)
Been out of this industry for about a decade, but what you say is mainly true. General export regs are what companies tend to refer to first for guidance. If materials, power, frequency, processing speed, et al, is mentioned, its the company's duty to control these items in the marketplace, which then involves disclosure to the government, which then can result in classification. Not an expert here, but have been on that path before and relaying what I picked up over the years.
In pure speculation, I sense Shawyers IP was buried for R&D, possibly partnered with a government entity, thereby Boeing was not, within itself, working on it as "Boeing". Semantics have a way of answering questions they was not intended to answer. But thats just one person's opinion...no evidence to back it up.
The disagreement I have is your comment that companies cannot just steal IP. Stealing and enhancement/development are a fine line which has been crossed many times over many years. Its a rough and tumble world out there.
-
...
The onsite government personnel generally do not have classification authority. Also, they need to be under contract with the government for that before any new information could be treated as classified. If the drive was already classified, and Boeing employees knew about it they wouldn't have needed the original contract with Shawyer to get information about it.
Also, Boeing would still have wanted a follow on contract with Shawyer if they didn't give up on it. Even if it somehow got classified, they can't steal his IP. Please drop this conspiracy theory now, unless you have actual evidence to support your case.
Agreed !
... Shawyer's government funding has ended. Boeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
David Hambling | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Nov 5, 2012
Notice that Hambling disclosed not only that “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer” but even more final , they added that "the company (Boeing) is no longer pursuing this avenue." From what Hambling wrote, it reads to me that Boeing Phantom Works is no longer pursuing this (EM Drive) avenue. Furthermore, given a previous arrangement between Boeing and Shawyer, it would be highly non-standard for Boeing to continue working on Shawyer's technology without an Intellectual Property arrangement with Shawyer that would allow this. And, if Boeing would have conducted their own independent microwave cavity EM Drive R&D work prior to the arrangement with Shawyer, it would not make Intellectual Property sense that Boeing would have entered into an arrangement with Shawyer, as large companies usually refuse to discuss inventions with outside inventors because such discussions and arrangements create Intellectual Property issues (Ford Motor Company has an old classic legal case on such IP questions, involving intermittent windshield wipers (*)). Since Boeing is a very large public company with an extensive IP department, this implies that indeed "they are no longer pursuing this (EM Drive) avenue" at all, and if, hypothetically, Boeing were to conduct such development in the future, it would have to be a different (for Intellectual Property purposes) engineering design than Shawyer's EM Drive.
In other words, if Boeing would be engaged in any such development, Boeing would not be developing "his (Shawyer's) technology" but Boeing's separate, unique, different (for IP purposes) technology.
---------------
(*) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers in licensing the technology. They all rejected his proposal, yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969
-
For all we know, SPR's flight thrusters may have had significant weight, volume, service life, unexpected signature characteristics, or some other factor that made them operationally unfavorable over ion drive based solar electric station keeping systems. In the end, it's all speculation, and doesn't really matter. The onus is still on EM Drive proponents to demonstrate an indisputably functional system.
-
...
The onsite government personnel generally do not have classification authority. Also, they need to be under contract with the government for that before any new information could be treated as classified. If the drive was already classified, and Boeing employees knew about it they wouldn't have needed the original contract with Shawyer to get information about it.
Also, Boeing would still have wanted a follow on contract with Shawyer if they didn't give up on it. Even if it somehow got classified, they can't steal his IP. Please drop this conspiracy theory now, unless you have actual evidence to support your case.
Agreed !
... Shawyer's government funding has ended. Boeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
David Hambling | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Nov 5, 2012
Notice that Hambling disclosed not only that “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer” but even more final , they added that "the company (Boeing) is no longer pursuing this avenue." From what Hambling wrote, it reads to me that Boeing Phantom Works is no longer pursuing this (EM Drive) avenue. Furthermore, given a previous arrangement between Boeing and Shawyer, it would be highly non-standard for Boeing to continue working on Shawyer's technology without an Intellectual Property arrangement with Shawyer that would allow this. And, if Boeing would have conducted their own independent microwave cavity EM Drive R&D work prior to the arrangement with Shawyer, it would not make Intellectual Property sense that Boeing would have entered into an arrangement with Shawyer, as large companies usually refuse to discuss inventions with outside inventors because such discussions and arrangements create Intellectual Property issues (Ford Motor Company has an old classic legal case on such IP questions, involving intermittent windshield wipers (*)). Since Boeing is a very large public company with an extensive IP department, this implies that indeed "they are no longer pursuing this (EM Drive) avenue" at all, and if, hypothetically, Boeing were to conduct such development in the future, it would have to be a different (for Intellectual Property purposes) engineering design than Shawyer's EM Drive.
In other words, if Boeing would be engaged in any such development, Boeing would not be developing "his (Shawyer's) technology" but Boeing's separate, unique, different (for IP purposes) technology.
---------------
(*) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers in licensing the technology. They all rejected his proposal, yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969
First of all, let me make it clear that this is pure speculation on my part, and I have no intention to create yet another conspiracy theory, and I don't want to waste any bandwidth here.
You may have mistaken my implication. I'm suggesting that Roger is keeping us in the dark, not Boeing. I suspect that this in no mystery at all to Roger, and I suspect that Roger's IP is perfectly safe with Boeing, but maybe not so with the Chinese.
Aviation Week and Space Technology is an awesome publication, but their track record on classified programs is hit or miss. It's a frustratingly amusing fact of which some of you are aware, I'm sure.
-
..
Here is the details as given in the meep manual, maybe that makes a difference for you.
you can also compute force spectra: forces on an object as a function of frequency, computed by Fourier transforming the fields and integrating the vacuum Maxwell stress tensor
\sigma_{ij} = E_i^*E_j + H_i^*H_j - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left( |\mathbf{E}|^2 + |\mathbf{H}|^2 \right)
over a surface S via \mathbf{F} = \int_S \sigma d\mathbf{A}. We recommend that you normally only evaluate the stress tensor over a surface lying in vacuum, as the interpretation and definition of the stress tensor in arbitrary media is often problematic (the subject of extensive and controversial literature.
As I said, a force is the integral of a stress tensor component over a surface area.
The statement in the Meep manual you are quoting now is simply a statement about calculating forces, and not about calculating energy density.
As I said in my previous post, stress and energy density have the same units (which is not a coincidence). A force does not have the same units as energy. Energy has units of force times displacement. Energy density has units of force times displacement over volume, or force over area.
Your statement it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
that the integral of the stress tensor has the same units as energy density is incorrect, and not at all supported by the Meep manual.
Sorry.
So please explain to me how this statement is either true or false.
"The pressure exerted by an electromagnetic field on neutral matter is simply equal to its energy density (the two quantities have the same units), and is uniformly exerted in all directions orthogonal to the lines of magnetic flux."
From: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#FORCE
Thanks
aero
-
I would like to suggest, in the interest of readability, that people refrain from posting speculation, conspiracy theories and other unsupported conclusions. It would be more interesting to read the results of actual experiments, see photos of the apparatus, etc, etc. We have visited these conspiracy theories about EM-Drive "going black" many times before.
-
For all we know, SPR's flight thrusters may have had significant weight, volume, service life, unexpected signature characteristics, or some other factor that made them operationally unfavorable over ion drive based solar electric station keeping systems. In the end, it's all speculation, and doesn't really matter. The onus is still on EM Drive proponents to demonstrate an indisputably functional system.
Speculation on Boeing being a Saint or Sinner on this issue is all the same, speculative. Everyone has seen my honest, open efforts on the 18.4 mN of observed torsion beam displacement. They can take it or leave it. Its all the same to me...onus is not relevant as I have nothing to prove to anyone but myself, thereby no duty nor obligation to anyone except to share the journey...which I did.
-
..
Here is the details as given in the meep manual, maybe that makes a difference for you.
you can also compute force spectra: forces on an object as a function of frequency, computed by Fourier transforming the fields and integrating the vacuum Maxwell stress tensor
\sigma_{ij} = E_i^*E_j + H_i^*H_j - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \left( |\mathbf{E}|^2 + |\mathbf{H}|^2 \right)
over a surface S via \mathbf{F} = \int_S \sigma d\mathbf{A}. We recommend that you normally only evaluate the stress tensor over a surface lying in vacuum, as the interpretation and definition of the stress tensor in arbitrary media is often problematic (the subject of extensive and controversial literature.
As I said, a force is the integral of a stress tensor component over a surface area.
The statement in the Meep manual you are quoting now is simply a statement about calculating forces, and not about calculating energy density.
As I said in my previous post, stress and energy density have the same units (which is not a coincidence). A force does not have the same units as energy. Energy has units of force times displacement. Energy density has units of force times displacement over volume, or force over area.
Your statement it is not the Poynting vector, rather the curve shows the integral of the Maxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized (one side only) square detectors, perpendicular to the z axis of rotation. And that has the same units as Energy Density.
that the integral of the stress tensor has the same units as energy density is incorrect, and not at all supported by the Meep manual.
Sorry.
So please explain to me how this statement is either true or false.
"The pressure exerted by an electromagnetic field on neutral matter is simply equal to its energy density (the two quantities have the same units), and is uniformly exerted in all directions orthogonal to the lines of magnetic flux."
From: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#FORCE
Thanks
aero
Yes, as I have explained in my last several posts, stress and energy density have the same units, in agreement with what Greg Egan states.
I have further explained that the fact that stress and energy density have the same units is not a coincidence.
You, first postulated that the energy density is the integral of the Poynting vector. Then you changed this to state that energy density is the integral of the stress tensor.
Sorry, both of your above statements are incorrect. Even dimensionally, they are both incorrect and disagree with the quotation you are quoting from Greg Egan.
As I have previously formally proved:
STRESS AT ALL INTERNAL SURFACES FOR TE0np MODES
* all shear stress components are zero, and hence the stress field is a principal stress
* the stress is compressive
* the stress varies from zero to its maximum compressive value, never reversing sign, at a frequency which is twice as high as the frequency of the electromagnetic fields.
* the electric vector field is zero at all internal surfaces
* Coulomb's pressure and the electrostatic pressure are zero
* the stress is entirely due to the energy density
* the stress is entirely due to the magnetic component parallel to the surface
Again, the above -that the stress is entirely due to the energy density- is true, and only true for TE0np MODES, assuming perfectly conductive surfaces
(Transverse electric modes with quantum number in the azimuthal direction equal to zero)
-
When I first read that Boeing received a working prototype of the EMDrive, and then didn't follow through with a "lucrative licensing agreement", it made perfect sense to me. Having worked 30+ years at an aerospace company even larger than Boeing, I can tell you that if the prototype demonstrated any thrust whatsoever, it would have have been classified immediately, and Roger would not be allowed to confirm nor deny anything further about that specific device nor any contracts nor agreements related to it.
I remember some disappointment expressed earlier about Roger's companies being focused on terrestrial applications, but I think he made it very clear in the IBT interview that he expects that the general public will become familiar with all of this when autonomous flying cars become available, but that the "much more serious" applications will be related to cheap access to space, especially space-based solar power, which he sees as the answer to energy and environmental problems worldwide.
So you are saying that you worked at Lockheed Martin, since they are the only one comparable to Boeing. Northrop is next, but they are definitely smaller than Boeing.
Also, they can't just classify something. Only the government can classify something, and if you had the experience you just claimed, you should know that.
My first reaction when reading that they didn't follow through was also not surprise, because it makes perfect sense that they would check it out, find out it doesn't work as advertised and drop the contract. Claiming "it went dark" and such basically amounts to conspiracy theory unless you have some real evidence to show.
Shawyer plainly says they verified the data. If they refuted Shawyer's data he would not have said that.
-
Dr. Rodal,
So what is true about the meep force curves related to energy density? Is the Maxwell Stress Tensor at a point equal to the energy density at that point? This run was for a copper cavity. Could that be why it shows negative forces just inside the end boundaries?
aero
-
Dr. Rodal,
So what is true about the meep force curves related to energy density? Is the Maxwell Stress Tensor at a point equal to the energy density at that point? This run was for a copper cavity. Could that be why it shows negative forces just inside the end boundaries?
aero
For a TE0np mode, for example, for TE012 or for TE013, assuming perfect conductors, the stress and the energy density are the same thing. You should not be integrating the stress to obtain the energy density.
Please show the same graph for a TE0np mode, without integrating the stress. Do not integrate the stress.
;)
For non-perfect conductors there are really tiny electric fields within the skin depth but they are usually ignored (ref. Jackson) for TE0np modes, and don't much affect what is stated above.
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
With more definitions, since nobody seems to understand that thrust inversely proportional to Q is very different from anything done prior.
In these equations;
tau(r) is the decay time of the Q as a function of r, measured from the apex of the cone.
Zeta(r) is the damping factor as a function of r.
m(r) is the variation in equivalent mass of the MW photons inside the frustum, as a function of r.
g(r) is the acceleration due to the gradient in Zeta, wrt. r.
T is the thrust, written as a function of Q, or a function of tau.
Chi is (scalar) magnetic flux.
When there is current flowing through the copper, copper has resistance and resistance creates a voltage drop. Once that voltage drop has been created, magnetic flux can escape by the amount equal to the V-sec around the loop. So magnetic flux is escaping where there is heat being generated and power is dissipated. Preferably at the big end. This asymmetry provides the equation for force, the same as a photon rocket, except;
F ~ P/2v, where v = -1/(dtau/dr) << c
Hence, thrust can be generated much greater than a photon rocket, because the velocity at which magnetic flux is escaping is so very slow.
Edit: Pesky negative signs!
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
With more definitions, since nobody seems to understand that thrust inversely proportional to Q is very different from anything done prior.
In these equations;
tau(r) is the decay time of the Q as a function of r, measured from the apex of the cone.
Zeta(r) is the damping factor as a function of r.
m(r) is the variation in equivalent mass of the MW photons inside the frustum, as a function of r.
g(r) is the acceleration due to the gradient in Zeta, wrt. r.
T is the thrust, written as a function of Q, or a function of tau.
Chi is (scalar) magnetic flux.
When there is current flowing through the copper, copper has resistance and resistance creates a voltage drop. Once that voltage drop has been created, magnetic flux can escape by the amount equal to the V-sec around the loop. So magnetic flux is escaping where there is heat being generated and power is dissipated. Preferably at the big end. This asymmetry provides the equation for force, the same as a photon rocket, except;
F ~ P/2v, where v = -1/(dtau/dr) << c
Hence, thrust can be generated much greater than a photon rocket, because the velocity at which magnetic flux is escaping is so very slow.
In effect, the speed of light is slow so Power/c is much greater than light? I always speculated that if light can be made slow, its momentum could be larger but I thought Todd's recent paper showed if the dielectric constants of space change, the force is invariant. Why is force P/2v and not P/v or 2P/v?
Also, when and how did thrust become inversely proportional to Q instead of proportional to Q? Physically, that doesn't seem to resonate with me. ;D Thanks.
-
...
With more definitions, since nobody seems to understand that thrust inversely proportional to Q is very different from anything done prior.
In these equations;
tau(r) is the decay time of the Q as a function of r, measured from the apex of the cone.
Zeta(r) is the damping factor as a function of r.
m(r) is the variation in equivalent mass of the MW photons inside the frustum, as a function of r.
g(r) is the acceleration due to the gradient in Zeta, wrt. r.
T is the thrust, written as a function of Q, or a function of tau.
Chi is (scalar) magnetic flux.
When there is current flowing through the copper, copper has resistance and resistance creates a voltage drop. Once that voltage drop has been created, magnetic flux can escape by the amount equal to the V-sec around the loop. So magnetic flux is escaping where there is heat being generated and power is dissipated. Preferably at the big end. This asymmetry provides the equation for force, the same as a photon rocket, except;
F ~ P/2v, where v = -1/(dtau/dr) << c
Hence, thrust can be generated much greater than a photon rocket, because the velocity at which magnetic flux is escaping is so very slow.
Congratulations on the work so far. Now we need some calculations to compare with NASA's and TU Dresden (Tajmar's) experimental results...
-
...
With more definitions, since nobody seems to understand that thrust inversely proportional to Q is very different from anything done prior.
...
I think you are shortchanging ;) the power of your theory.
Your theory does not say that thrust is inversely proportional to Q.
Your theory states that thrust is directly proportional to the negative rate of change of Log[Q] with r
, (times P, and divided by 2 times omegao)
That could mean almost no dependence or a high dependence on Q depending on the relationship between tau and r. This function remains "under wraps" and needs to be uncovered. It could be a nonlinear dependence
-
Dr. Rodal,
So what is true about the meep force curves related to energy density? Is the Maxwell Stress Tensor at a point equal to the energy density at that point? This run was for a copper cavity. Could that be why it shows negative forces just inside the end boundaries?
aero
For a TE0np mode, for example, for TE012 or for TE013, assuming perfect conductors, the stress and the energy density are the same thing. You should not be integrating the stress to obtain the energy density.
Please show the same graph for a TE0np mode, without integrating the stress. Do not integrate the stress.
;)
For non-perfect conductors there are really tiny electric fields within the skin depth but they are usually ignored (ref. Jackson) for TE0np modes, and don't much affect what is stated above.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379476;image)
The image that I attached, linked here, was the Maxwell Stress Tensor integrated over a detector 0.0354 square meep units. It was my consideration that I could recover the average stress on the detector by dividing the integral by the detector area. The cavity is resonating in the TE013 mode at high Q ~ 100,000. I'm using a meep built-in function to generate the curve above and to "not integrate" would require that I calculate the stresses from the fields as I know you have done, but doing so would result in so many data points that they would be difficult to deal with as I am looking for the internal values, not the values at the boundary.
I'm not sure what causes the curve to go negative though. Negative values aren't really at the ends, particularly the one at -1.5. The internal surface of the ends are at exactly -0.4 and +0.4 while the two end detectors are one grid point inside the ends.
-
Missed a few minus signs. :-[ It's still mind blowing when you realize that a smaller Q and a lower frequency should work better. Note, this is not assuming a cylinder. It is using the radial coordinate from the apex of the cone and gives the basic design relationships.
Thrust - With constant frequency, constant velocity and constant wavelength inside the cavity.
With more definitions, since nobody seems to understand that thrust inversely proportional to Q is very different from anything done prior.
In these equations;
tau(r) is the decay time of the Q as a function of r, measured from the apex of the cone.
Zeta(r) is the damping factor as a function of r.
m(r) is the variation in equivalent mass of the MW photons inside the frustum, as a function of r.
g(r) is the acceleration due to the gradient in Zeta, wrt. r.
T is the thrust, written as a function of Q, or a function of tau.
Chi is (scalar) magnetic flux.
When there is current flowing through the copper, copper has resistance and resistance creates a voltage drop. Once that voltage drop has been created, magnetic flux can escape by the amount equal to the V-sec around the loop. So magnetic flux is escaping where there is heat being generated and power is dissipated. Preferably at the big end. This asymmetry provides the equation for force, the same as a photon rocket, except;
F ~ P/2v, where v = -1/(dtau/dr) << c
Hence, thrust can be generated much greater than a photon rocket, because the velocity at which magnetic flux is escaping is so very slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmvAZoylyQ
Fields outside of a frustum.
Shell
-
...
The image that I attached, linked here, was the Maxwell Stress Tensor integrated over a detector 0.0354 square meep units. It was my consideration that I could recover the average stress on the detector by dividing the integral by the detector area. The cavity is resonating in the TE013 mode at high Q ~ 100,000. I'm using a meep built-in function to generate the curve above and to "not integrate" would require that I calculate the stresses from the fields as I know you have done, but doing so would result in so many data points that they would be difficult to deal with as I am looking for the internal values, not the values at the boundary.
I'm not sure what causes the curve to go negative though. Negative values aren't really at the ends, particularly the one at -1.5. The internal surface of the ends are at exactly -0.4 and +0.4 while the two end detectors are one grid point inside the ends.
What about this MEEP function that apparently is meant to output the total electric and magnetic energy density ?
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#Output_functions
output-tot-pwr
Output the total electric and magnetic energy density. Note that you might want to wrap this step function in synchronized-magnetic to compute it more accurately; see Synchronizing the magnetic and electric fields.
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
-
...
Fields outside of a frustum.
Shell
What is the magnitude of:
1) the calculated fields outside the frustum of a cone
2) the calculated field inside the frustum of a cone
Need to understand the numerical accuracy of these calculations to understand what is being plotted for "outside fields"
The point being that there are fields outside of the frustum and as to the field strengths they need to be derived from meep, this one was a TM mode. I'd recommend to aero that's another meep run he should do with his current TE013 frustum, so we can keep the current playing field.
Shell
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Due to the skineffect* at the conductive walls the field is many many orders of magnitude greater inside the cavity than at the outside(when the source is still inside). Therefore its more likely that possible interactions with the QV should be orders of magnitude larger inside the cavity itself.
*and thick walls compared to the penetration depth for a given frequency and material conductivity of the wall
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Todd forgot the negative signs multiplying the rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
Todd's formula should show thrust proportional to the negative rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
EDIT: Todd corrected his posted formula, now reads OK
-
...
Fields outside of a frustum.
Shell
What is the magnitude of:
1) the calculated fields outside the frustum of a cone
2) the calculated field inside the frustum of a cone
Need to understand the numerical accuracy of these calculations to understand what is being plotted for "outside fields"
The point being that there are fields outside of the frustum and as to the field strengths they need to be derived from meep, this one was a TM mode. I'd recommend to aero that's another meep run he should do with his current TE013 frustum, so we can keep the current playing field.
Shell
I think that those fields outside the frustum are due to well-known numerical lack of precision in the Finite Difference method (which cannot satisfy the Neumann boundary conditions all along the boundary, but only at the nodes). Take a look at their numerical magnitude in comparison with the fields inside the frustum.
Also should compare FDTD domain results with exact solutions to ascertain the veracity of the numerical output.
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Todd forgot the negative signs multiplying the rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
Todd's formula should show thrust proportional to the negative rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
In an ordinary tuned circuit, there is a positive relationship between Q and performance; higher Q means better performance. But, when you add a load, the measured Q drops as energy is transferred to the load, a negative relationship, by definition because energy is "lost" to the load. Wouldn't the same thing happen here as energy is coupled to momentum? All other variables held constant, the more efficient the coupling, the lower the instantaneous Q is... It's the coupling mechanism you're looking for, yes?
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Thank you. I do too. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of it myself. If I write the gradient as;
-ΔQ/L,
Then what we want is a high Q at the small end and large difference from small to big end. Or, a large time constant, tau at the small end and a short time constant at the big end, whilst still minimizing the length, L.
Shawyer's latest design seems to maximize the Q at the small end, but the superconducting big end would seem like a bad idea to me.
-
...
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12263767291116468273&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029)
"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike Trushyk (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0004027)
EMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
Fluctuations
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
It seems there may be some drag of the flow of virtual particles through the cavity material but maybe not enough to be of consequence.
Ok I had backwards. Matter and Anti-matter seems to pop into existence at the magnetic nodes which should be E_max instead. So the electric fields seem to make them and I believe unlike an antenna inducing current in a cavity they are out of phase with the light. As a result they are instead pushed toward the magnetic field maximum. Sorry for the confusion
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567 The calculated trajectories are used to analyze the positron density distribution in the standing wave. It follows from the model that the positron density peaks at the nodes and the anti-nodes of the standing wave because the electron-positron pairs are mainly produced at the magnetic nodes as the cascade growth rate peaks there and the produced pairs drift to the electric nodes as the magnetic nodes are unstable for them.
-
...
Fields outside of a frustum.
Shell
What is the magnitude of:
1) the calculated fields outside the frustum of a cone
2) the calculated field inside the frustum of a cone
Need to understand the numerical accuracy of these calculations to understand what is being plotted for "outside fields"
The point being that there are fields outside of the frustum and as to the field strengths they need to be derived from meep, this one was a TM mode. I'd recommend to aero that's another meep run he should do with his current TE013 frustum, so we can keep the current playing field.
Shell
I think that those fields outside the frustum are due to well-known numerical lack of precision in the Finite Difference method (which cannot satisfy the Neumann boundary conditions all along the boundary, but only at the nodes). Take a look at their numerical magnitude in comparison with the fields inside the frustum.
Also should compare FDTD domain results with exact solutions to ascertain the veracity of the numerical output.
I think this could be simulated in COMSOL if it is capable of simulating power loss in conductors, and if it can solve the voltage drop around the loops of eddy currents to compute the Volt-sec being lost. Anywhere there are eddy currents dissipating power, there are voltage drops where magnetic flux is being "shed" from inside the frustum. The divergence in this gradient from small end to big end is what provides thrust. (I think.)
-
...
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
Fluctuations
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
Please comment on the fact that none of these EM Drive experiments come anywhere near the Schwinger electric eld strengths ( 10^18 V/m), needed to induce vacuum breakdown and hence introduce electron-positron pair creation!
Ok, I am speculating the pairs being electrons and positrons which are overlapping in the vacuum. To fully separate them requires immense energy. However, their separation may be analogue in increments of the plank length. So stimulating some extra separation of the virtual particles (not to full fledged matter/anti-matter but that they exist more with greater mass). Assuming creation of full pairs causes an increase in the index of the vacuum then suggest that maybe the increased separation of said pairs not to full separation can increase the index of the vacuum but not as much as full separation.
I'm looking for something that suggest other experiments that test the impulse of light in very large electric/magnetic fields from standing waves but I am not sure I'll be able to find anything.
-
...
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
Fluctuations
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
Please comment on the fact that none of these EM Drive experiments come anywhere near the Schwinger electric eld strengths ( 10^18 V/m), needed to induce vacuum breakdown and hence introduce electron-positron pair creation!
Ok, I am speculating the pairs being electrons and positrons which are overlapping in the vacuum. To fully separate them requires immense energy. However, their separation may be analogue in increments of the plank length. So stimulating some extra separation of the virtual particles (not to full fledged matter/anti-matter but that they exist more with greater mass). Assuming creation of full pairs causes an increase in the index of the vacuum then suggest that maybe the increased separation of said pairs not to full separation can increase the index of the vacuum but not as much as full separation.
I'm looking for something that suggest other experiments that test the impulse of light in very large magnetic fields from standing waves but I am not sure I'll be able to find anything.
Let's postulate something that I've been thinking about for some time now.
Evanescent waves are virtual particles.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312
-
...
The image that I attached, linked here, was the Maxwell Stress Tensor integrated over a detector 0.0354 square meep units. It was my consideration that I could recover the average stress on the detector by dividing the integral by the detector area. The cavity is resonating in the TE013 mode at high Q ~ 100,000. I'm using a meep built-in function to generate the curve above and to "not integrate" would require that I calculate the stresses from the fields as I know you have done, but doing so would result in so many data points that they would be difficult to deal with as I am looking for the internal values, not the values at the boundary.
I'm not sure what causes the curve to go negative though. Negative values aren't really at the ends, particularly the one at -1.5. The internal surface of the ends are at exactly -0.4 and +0.4 while the two end detectors are one grid point inside the ends.
What about this MEEP function that apparently is meant to output the total electric and magnetic energy density ?
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#Output_functions
output-tot-pwr
Output the total electric and magnetic energy density. Note that you might want to wrap this step function in synchronized-magnetic to compute it more accurately; see Synchronizing the magnetic and electric fields.
I forgot about that one, having just the other day came to the understanding that force and energy density are directly related.
Thanks.
-
Just a random thought - noise on the forum.
I understand that there is no such thing discovered as a magnetic monopole. Maybe there is no such thing as an electric monopole either, rather the other end of the electric dipole is embedded in the QV, so rather than create electron/positron pairs, we only need an amount of energy under the right conditions to pull the complete electric dipole out of the QV.
As I said, just noise.
-
Just a random thought - noise on the forum.
I understand that there is no such thing discovered as a magnetic monopole. Maybe there is no such thing as an electric monopole either, rather the other end of the electric dipole is embedded in the QV, so rather than create electron/positron pairs, we only need an amount of energy under the right conditions to pull the complete electric dipole out of the QV.
As I said, just noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
Here is something on proton decay which doesn't happen but I noticed if it did they suspect it might decay into a pion and positron. Maybe all the positrons fell into a lower state as being protons and stayed that way? Don't know really.
-
...I forgot about that one, having just the other day came to the understanding that force and energy density are directly related.
Thanks.
Are you planning to run that command to calculate the energy density and plot and compare for TE013 ?
Thanks
I'm thinking about it. It might lead in the direction I'm investigating. Or at least confirm the shape of the axial energy density profile. I'll do it if it doesn't turn out to be to hard. It shouldn't be.
-
Let's postulate something that I've been thinking about for some time now.
Evanescent waves are virtual particles.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312
I can't believe it took me this long to actually look up evanescent waves. I really wish I'd looked them up sooner because...
I love it! It’s starting to feel like all of the pieces are coming together :-)
This allows the observation of ‘impossible’ properties of light and of a fundamental field-theory quantity, which was previously considered as ‘virtual’.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312)
“The evanescent wave couples two media in which traveling waves are allowed, and hence permits the transfer of energy or a particle between the media (depending on the wave equation in use)”
“Depending on the nature of the source element, the evanescent field involved is either predominantly electric (capacitive) or magnetic (inductive)”
“The evanescent wave coupling takes place in the non-radiative field near each medium and as such is always associated with matter; i.e., with the induced currents and charges within a partially reflecting surface. Other commonplace examples are the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field)
So, lets see, we should be trying to excite a TE mode with a circular antenna that needs to be placed at least 2/3 of a wavelength from the interior wall of the frustum so that the antenna can transfer energy to the partially reflecting copper surface while assuring that the resulting near-field effects of evanescent fields from the frustum wall are decoupled from the antenna. Right? At least I think we want the source decoupled from the walls…
The evanescent waves seem to tie together the capacitor based MET, Todd’s Theory, and maybe even a polarizable quantum vacuum. And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Thank you. I do too. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of it myself. If I write the gradient as;
-ΔQ/L,
Then what we want is a high Q at the small end and large difference from small to big end. Or, a large time constant, tau at the small end and a short time constant at the big end, whilst still minimizing the length, L.
Shawyer's latest design seems to maximize the Q at the small end, but the superconducting big end would seem like a bad idea to me.
I was thinking about you contemplating d(tau)/dr and thought that tau usually represents (seconds/cycle). I was thinking that (Tau)=1/f where f=cycles/second. But then that makes it a double derivative, 1/df 1/dr and omega should be 2*pi*f Not sure that makes sense.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
As this is likely to stir some debate, we should have discussions that start by making it clear as to whether they are considering General Relativity or just Special Relativity.
One of the reasons it would be helpful to make this clear is that the EM Drive's inventor (Shawyer) continues to claim that the EM Drive can be explained just by using Special Relativity (instead of General Relativity), Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that according to Special Relativity (*):
<< in special relativity, the rest mass of a system is not required to be equal to the sum of the rest masses of the parts (a situation which would be analogous to gross mass-conservation in chemistry). For example, a massive particle can decay into photons which individually have no mass, but which (as a system) preserve the invariant mass of the particle which produced them. Also a box of moving non-interacting particles (e.g., photons, or an ideal gas) will have a larger invariant mass than the sum of the rest masses of the particles which compose it. This is because the total energy of all particles and fields in a system must be summed, and this quantity, as seen in the center of momentum frame, and divided by c2, is the system's invariant mass.
In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings>>
E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
-------------------
(*) Shawyer's insistence that all that is required is Special Relativity, instead of General Relativity, even nowadays, after all the controversy from his New Scientist article a decade ago, is part of the reason why the EM Drive is so controversial with scientists, because they associate the EM Drive with Shawyer's theory.
Also, many discussions at NSF-EM Drive regarding conservation of energy, implicitly have assumed Special Relativity, and implicitly ignored General Relativity. This assumption needs to be made explicit.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
As this is likely to stir some debate, we should have discussions that start by making it clear as to whether they are considering General Relativity or just Special Relativity.
One of the reasons it would be helpful to make this clear is that the EM Drive's inventor (Shawyer) continues to claim that the EM Drive can be explained just by using Special Relativity (instead of General Relativity), Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that according to Special Relativity (*):
<< in special relativity, the rest mass of a system is not required to be equal to the sum of the rest masses of the parts (a situation which would be analogous to gross mass-conservation in chemistry). For example, a massive particle can decay into photons which individually have no mass, but which (as a system) preserve the invariant mass of the particle which produced them. Also a box of moving non-interacting particles (e.g., photons, or an ideal gas) will have a larger invariant mass than the sum of the rest masses of the particles which compose it. This is because the total energy of all particles and fields in a system must be summed, and this quantity, as seen in the center of momentum frame, and divided by c2, is the system's invariant mass.
In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings>>
E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
-------------------
(*) Shawyer's insistence that all that is required is Special Relativity, instead of General Relativity, even nowadays, after all the controversy from his New Scientist article a decade ago, is part of the reason why the EM Drive is so controversial with scientists, because they associate the EM Drive with Shawyer's theory.
Also, many discussions at NSF-EM Drive regarding conservation of energy, implicitly have assumed Special Relativity, and implicitly ignored General Relativity. This assumption needs to be made explicit.
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra. :D
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell
-
...
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra. :D
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell
Well just to make it clear, the Mach effect as in J. Woodward, or as based in Hoyle-Narlikar, is clearly a General Relativity effect, so that any discussion of this effect concerning Conservation of Energy that ignores gravitation (as some have attempted) is incorrect and necessarily leads to absurd results, just as a discussion of a Gravity Assist swing-by maneuver would wrongly conclude that conservation of energy is violently violated by a Gravity Assist if the effect of gravitation would be ignored in a Conservation of Energy discussion of a swing-by maneuver.
-
...
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra. :D
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell
Well just to make it clear, the Mach effect as in J. Woodward, or as based in Hoyle-Narlikar, is clearly a General Relativity effect, so that any discussion of this effect concerning Conservation of Energy that ignores gravitation (as some have attempted) is incorrect and necessarily leads to absurd results, just as a discussion of a Gravity Assist swing-by maneuver would wrongly conclude that conservation of energy is violently violated by a Gravity Assist if the effect of gravitation would be ignored in a Conservation of Energy discussion of a swing-by maneuver.
To me, General Relativity is clearly the effect of Damping. The only difference between what is going in inside the frustum and a gravitational field is that; when the Damping Factor increases inside the frustum, it isn't affecting the rulers and clocks being used to measure frequency and dimensions. It's only affecting the EM waves and the frustum.
In a gravitational field, when the Damping Factor acting on matter increases, it affects the rulers and clocks, and so frequency and wavelength do change, giving us gravitational time dilation and length contraction, but it is still just a change in the variable, tau for the harmonic oscillators that make up matter. Wow! 8)
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
Friday Oct 14 2016
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_seashells_gary.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Show
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
Friday Oct 14 2016
(http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ep_seashells_gary.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Show
Thanks for the link Dr.Rodal. December is coming soon and it seems it will be very interesting due to multiple reasons :)
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
As this is likely to stir some debate, we should have discussions that start by making it clear as to whether they are considering General Relativity or just Special Relativity.
One of the reasons it would be helpful to make this clear is that the EM Drive's inventor (Shawyer) continues to claim that the EM Drive can be explained just by using Special Relativity (instead of General Relativity), Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that according to Special Relativity (*):
<< in special relativity, the rest mass of a system is not required to be equal to the sum of the rest masses of the parts (a situation which would be analogous to gross mass-conservation in chemistry). For example, a massive particle can decay into photons which individually have no mass, but which (as a system) preserve the invariant mass of the particle which produced them. Also a box of moving non-interacting particles (e.g., photons, or an ideal gas) will have a larger invariant mass than the sum of the rest masses of the particles which compose it. This is because the total energy of all particles and fields in a system must be summed, and this quantity, as seen in the center of momentum frame, and divided by c2, is the system's invariant mass.
In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings>>
E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
-------------------
(*) Shawyer's insistence that all that is required is Special Relativity, instead of General Relativity, even nowadays, after all the controversy from his New Scientist article a decade ago, is part of the reason why the EM Drive is so controversial with scientists, because they associate the EM Drive with Shawyer's theory.
Also, many discussions at NSF-EM Drive regarding conservation of energy, implicitly have assumed Special Relativity, and implicitly ignored General Relativity. This assumption needs to be made explicit.
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The EmDrive internal EmWave and cavity are on 2 different reference planes as are the walls and internal EmWave of a Ring Laser Gyro.
As to disheartening:
Early in 1633, Galileo was summoned from his sickbed to defend his life’s work. Galileo was told to renounce his heresies in exchange for leniency. Galileo obliged. His book was burned and the sentence read in every university.
According to legend, as Galileo left the Inquisition hall after recanting his views, he supposedly muttered,
E pur se muove. (“Nevertheless, it moves.”)
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson (http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson)
Thanks Doc. Extremely satisfying to hear human voices make all this discussion real.
And thanks Shell, I often wondered why evanescent waves just disappeared from the discussion. ;)
The last 18 months or so has been very exciting. I'm glad I could watch.
....Edited to add smiley so Shell doesn't lose her faith in my pun-tability.
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The EmDrive internal EmWave and cavity are on 2 different reference planes as are the walls and internal EmWave of a Ring Laser Gyro.
These words in that order have no meaning that I can discern. Please clarify what you are saying. (For example what is a "reference plane," do you mean reference frame? If so I have no idea what frames you are talking about.)
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson (http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson)
Thanks Doc. Extremely satisfying to hear human voices make all this discussion real.
And thanks Shell, I often wondered why evanescent waves just disappeared from the discussion.
The last 18 months or so has been very exciting. I'm glad I could watch.
;D That's a pun on evanescent waves... right? lol
Thanks Bob, you made me chuckle.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
Don't forget Shell, we're hungry for data:(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/SC00003_5789.jpg)
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
That did not answer either question that I asked.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
That did not answer either question that I asked.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
I agree. If, as Shawyer claims, the radiation pressure imbalance upon end plates is just what is needed to move the EmDrive (assuming no photon momentum recoil nor radiation pressure upon the side wall, hem…) then a greater radiation pressure upon the big end plate should move the drive according to a vector pointing from small end towards big end (i.e. big end leading). But in this scenario, Shawyer claims the thruster moves the other way. This is beyond understanding.
However if radiation pressure imbalance is NOT the source of thrust, and that the center of mass of the EM wave moves inside the EmDrive, for example according to Todd's idea or McCulloch's theory which posits that photon momentum increases while travelling towards big end and decreases while travelling towards small end in a tapered cavity, then the cavity has to move in reaction, small end leading, in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
That is not what Shawyer claims when he focuses solely on the interaction of photons upon end plate surfaces, neglecting their behaviour while travelling in between.
May I add that when a thruster involving radiation pressure is at work as a true open system with no need for general relativity, for example firing a laser here on Earth aimed at a reflector at the back of a space probe, the increased radiation pressure upon the reflector plate pushes the space probe forward, it does not attract the probe towards the beam and the Earth.*
* Of course, I'm talking about a conventional laser and not the very trekky case of a tractor beam: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2016/august/davidgrier.html ;)
-
Conscious of the speculative nature of this post, one response out of politeness. Please PM me for further chat if required.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Why not ? I love theories.
But I am not sure I have understood all the implications of this theory. For example, I do not see the link between 3 and 4. The fact that the mass density is uniform should not justify that there is no gravity effect. (The vacuum catastrophe)
If the mass density of the vacuum is near constant, the net gravitational force in any direction is nearly nil, at least compared to the force from the vacuum on one side.
In fact, thinking about this later, the only way the vacuum gets to be self gravitating and nearly uniform is if it produces a repulsive force, at least on itself. Otherwise it would agglomerate like ordinary matter. Quite interesting in the context of the cosmological constant/dark energy. From the point of view of this idea, it doesn't matter what the sign of the force is.
Also, I am not sure than 3 and 6 are compatible. If any non uniformity of the quantuum vacuum dissipates quickly, it would be logical that the dark momentum also dissipates quickly.
Don't think it really matters. If the EMDrive persuades a massive vacuum to move, and transfers momentum to it, the job is done. It doesn't really matter whether it takes micro-seconds or millenia for the vacuum to stop moving (since uniform motion through the vacuum is not detectable). (I'm voting for micro-seconds, because I think the metric stresses induced at the edge of the 'wake', as well as repulsive gravity, will soon even things out.)
By The Way, a general question about Quantuum Vacuum. Is there an experimental evidence that the density of Quantuum vacuum is the same in deep space than in laboratory on earth ?
Don't know. We know there is strong evidence for invisible stuff in galaxies with gravitational effects, which we've called dark matter. I would contend that could be variations in the mass-density of the vacuum. Again, whether effects are cause by a surfeit of attractive forces or a deficit of repulsive forces doesn't matter to the EMdrive. If the forces are repulsive, there is a better chance of explaining dark energy with the same paradigm as dark matter.
To throw in some numbers: Wiki says that the density of dark matter around the sun is 0.35GeV/cm^3. That's 0.56*10^-4 J/m^3. It also says that the vacuum energy is 10^-9 J/m^3, or 10^113 if you do the quantum calculation. Not as promising as one would like, but not conclusive, I think.
Should it be compatible with known experiments that the density of Quantuum vacuum is lower in deep space ? I know it is not supposed to be the case, but is it also against experimental evidence ?
Again, don't know, and Wiki doesn't seem to know anything about the topic.
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The fact that light propagates at c as observed in every frame defines a unique frame in my view for light and that has nothing to do with the concept of ether.
And exactly how are you so absolutely sure about Shawyer's claims having zero chance of being correct since no one knows exactly how the device works in the first place?
Experienced physicists sometimes are too quick to reject new ideas that don't immediately fit into their comfortable paradigms.
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
Each builder will have their own thoughts. Mine is not centered around a specific theory. There are many good and bad theories available to builders. For me, none have led me to a particular design concept or improvement modification...yet. But that could change.
edit - forgot the link to one of my favorite quotes:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
The problem with such a summary is that such an "expert" would have to properly understand all the theories being summarized ;)
(http://www.business-online-learning.com/images/businesshumourmarktwain.jpg)
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running :) I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010503-350x259.jpg)
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running :) I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010503-350x259.jpg)
I'm looking forward to seeing your TE013 mode as the TM modes are the preferred modes for particle accelerators.
Shell
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running :) I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
What are you using for an antenna? I've been working on modeling the magnetron antenna with cap. The size of a maggie antenna is enough to change resonance I am discovering.
-
article on superconducting em drive patent by Shawyer.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/superconducting-emdrive-patented.html
-
...
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
Fluctuations
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
Please comment on the fact that none of these EM Drive experiments come anywhere near the Schwinger electric eld strengths ( 10^18 V/m), needed to induce vacuum breakdown and hence introduce electron-positron pair creation!
Ok, I am speculating the pairs being electrons and positrons which are overlapping in the vacuum. To fully separate them requires immense energy. However, their separation may be analogue in increments of the plank length. So stimulating some extra separation of the virtual particles (not to full fledged matter/anti-matter but that they exist more with greater mass). Assuming creation of full pairs causes an increase in the index of the vacuum then suggest that maybe the increased separation of said pairs not to full separation can increase the index of the vacuum but not as much as full separation.
I'm looking for something that suggest other experiments that test the impulse of light in very large electric/magnetic fields from standing waves but I am not sure I'll be able to find anything.
I found this paper Consequences of Dirac theory of the positron by W Heisenberg, H Euler 2006 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15962642143262739198&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14) where they consider the interaction of light with the vacuum and how it may modify the Maxwell equations. Following this article I came across the ones below.
Multiple colliding electromagnetic pulses: a way to lower the threshold of e+ e− pair production from vacuum by SS Bulanov et al. 2010 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17012643621514618087&hl=en&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0,14&as_ylo=2008) where they seem to have found a way to lower the electric field threshold to create pairs by using pulses.
Quantum fluids of light by I Carusotto, C Ciuti 2013 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13484852301677249982&hl=en&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0,14&as_ylo=2008) where I believe they are investigating light light interaction with the quantum vacuum. There is a lot of information following these links so this is just a jumping point probably. This article is also very large.
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: In this review we have summarized recent developments in the theoretical and experimental study of gases of interacting photons in solid-state systems. An effective photon mass appears as a result of spatial confinement along the growth axis, while the nonlinear optical susceptibility of the material medium induces sizable binary interactions between photons. Strong coupling of the photon with some long-lived electronic excitation in the medium is a succesful strategy to reinforce binary interaction between the dressed bosonic particles that arise from the mixing of light with the matter excitation, the so-called polaritons.
If I am correct here they are discussing the creation of pair production using pulses and achieving a much lower energy threshold. It seems like the pulses may be tuned to osculate the pairs in a non-linear way. It appears the pair changes in mass as they are created which if I am correct then seems similar to assuming the pair exist in the vacuum and as they separate the mass changes till full separation. Correct me here if I am wrong please. Finite size effects in stimulated laser pair production by Thomas Heinzl, Anton Ilderton, Mattias Marklund 2010 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7562715483745733535&hl=en&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0,14)
If I am correct the pairs are stimulated in the electric field regions but are pushed toward the magnetic field regions.
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running :) I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010503-350x259.jpg)
I'm looking forward to seeing your TE013 mode as the TM modes are the preferred modes for particle accelerators.
Shell
The bigger field strength in the middle lobe seems due to the squeezing of the field an this section while inside the dielectric there is mode space to propagate from the viewpoint of the em field because of the higher dielectric constant x'=x*√εr. The weaker field in the dielectric has also to do with the tanδ of the material, but I think thats secound order since its only of the order of 0.00031.
-
Per Rodal's recent suggestion, I want to make clear that the contents of this post specifically deal only with up to special relativity, and not general relativity, because I am discussing Shawyer's claims. (And a mention of Woodward's paper where he tries to justify the Mach effect without general relativity)
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The fact that light propagates at c as observed in every frame defines a unique frame in my view for light and that has nothing to do with the concept of ether.
It seems like you don't understand what the terms you are using mean. The fact that light propagates at c in every frame is why you can't define a unique frame that it propagates relative to. A unique frame that it propagates relative to is exactly what the concept of the ether is. Unless you are thinking of a "rest frame" for the light, but that doesn't really make sense (any calculations in that frame involve dividing by 0) and it wouldn't be unique anyway since there are an infinite number of different directions for the frame to be moving in.
And exactly how are you so absolutely sure about Shawyer's claims having zero chance of being correct since no one knows exactly how the device works in the first place?
His claims are directly contradictory with each other and with simple physics. For example, as I have been trying to explain to TheTraveller recently, his claims include that a force applied pushing an object to the left will cause it to move to the right. There is a whole list of issues with his claims, you don't even get to that point without first ignoring that some of the claims blatantly break conservation of momentum, while Shawyer claims momentum is conserved and that no new physics is needed.
Experienced physicists sometimes are too quick to reject new ideas that don't immediately fit into their comfortable paradigms.
That may be true in some cases, but it is not inappropriate when you look at how bad Shawyer's claims are in this case.
Previously, you had made a post on the CoE discussion, that captures most of the essence of the issue of CoE:
...
I agree but when you look at the terms, both the gain in kinetic energy of the ship and the loss in kinetic energy of the propellant can dwarf the chemical energy. In the case of an EmDrive or MET device, I believe the ship borrows from the "propellant" even though we don't know what that exactly is. We do know the momentum of the "propellant" is the same as gained by the ship. And the ship borrows from that so the total energy input is whatever the EmDrive needed to make a constant force over a certain time period yet the kinetic energy gain of the ship as well as the loss of the "propellant" are huge in comparison. There is no violation of CoM or CoE. The apparent violation is comparing the total electrical input to the device with the ships final kinetic energy while ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
The biggest problem with Shawyer's claims is that he claims that no new physics is required to explain the emDrive, but to have the properties he claims you would have to have some sort of "propellant" everywhere that you can somehow borrow energy and momentum from like you said.
This is also the problem with Woodward's paper that we were discussing. While the Mach effect uses general relativity and has a way out, Woodward was trying to instead tries to argue that energy could be conserved without this. (The original argument he was trying to argue against only applies if it is a complete propellantless system with no external energy source, and he does not appeal to or account for the existence of propellant in his calculations)
-
in Roger Shawyer's recent interview he said the EmDrive was inspired by a mechanical gyroscope. If it is an electromagnetic gyroscope then could the thrust be caused by gyro precession (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo)?
-
A gyroscope has nothing to do with an EM drive or even a Mach effect....
It is confusing that Roger Shawyer brought that up in his narrative.
Totally unrelated , except that it simply proceeded his research on RF cavities...
It's like sneezing at the same moment when lightning strikes : it has the appearance of being related but in fact, there is no relation... ;D
-
Conscious of the speculative nature of this post, one response out of politeness. Please PM me for further chat if required.
Even if it is speculative, It is fully in the topic of this thread, so I think that PM is not needed.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Why not ? I love theories.
But I am not sure I have understood all the implications of this theory. For example, I do not see the link between 3 and 4. The fact that the mass density is uniform should not justify that there is no gravity effect. (The vacuum catastrophe)
If the mass density of the vacuum is near constant, the net gravitational force in any direction is nearly nil, at least compared to the force from the vacuum on one side.
In fact, thinking about this later, the only way the vacuum gets to be self gravitating and nearly uniform is if it produces a repulsive force, at least on itself. Otherwise it would agglomerate like ordinary matter. Quite interesting in the context of the cosmological constant/dark energy. From the point of view of this idea, it doesn't matter what the sign of the force is.
Well. Now I think that I understand the point. The heterogeneous repartition of the QV would make the dark matter, and the dark energy, and when the repartition is homogeneous, there is no particular effect, gravity or repulsive force cancels out.
When reading again the 9 points, I see it was clear, but I did not understood it correctly at the moment.
Also, I am not sure than 3 and 6 are compatible. If any non uniformity of the quantuum vacuum dissipates quickly, it would be logical that the dark momentum also dissipates quickly.
Don't think it really matters. If the EMDrive persuades a massive vacuum to move, and transfers momentum to it, the job is done. It doesn't really matter whether it takes micro-seconds or millenia for the vacuum to stop moving (since uniform motion through the vacuum is not detectable). (I'm voting for micro-seconds, because I think the metric stresses induced at the edge of the 'wake', as well as repulsive gravity, will soon even things out.)
It doesn't matter about how the Emdrive works, but it matters much about CoE.
It may conduce to an infinite generation of energy if Quantum Vacuum auto-restores. It depends on how this auto-restoration works.
If we compare the Quantum vacuum to the sea, when a propeller is used to accelerate a ship, the momentum of the generated currents is not kept a long time, but it means that the entire sea gained a very little momentum. Would it be the same here ? does the entire quantuum vacuum got a very little dark momentum ?
I think that it is important about a theory to know if it breaks CoM or CoE in our 3D+time universe. I do not tell that it is a nullification argument, but that the consequences of any theory about CoE and CoM needs to be clear.
Now that I hope having at least a little understood this theory, what would make the local mass-density heterogenous ?
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
That did not answer either question that I asked.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference.
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
This is why that particular element in the patent stands out to me. Engineering compromise? Red herring?
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
Hi Guys,
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Added: Beat up the Shawyer theory all you want but as a builder some of his designing is genius at getting the highest energies into a cavity we've seen.
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
Hi Guys,
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Not sure how I missed that. Thanks, Seashells!
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
Hi Guys,
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Not sure how I missed that. Thanks, Seashells!
no problemo.
Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's.
We need to think wider and not just one theory of operation, as operational data testing is starting to cast a wider net pulling many theories.
My Best To You,
Shell
-
...Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory (**), that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379527;image)
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
That did not answer either question that I asked.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference.
The device I described is very simple to build (you can just throw the balls by hand). And it allows you to replicate the forces caused by differential radiation pressure as described by the graph that you posted.
Your continued refusal to answer the simple questions I asked, to me indicates that you realize that the answer would demonstrate the inconsistency of Shawyer's claims. Instead you seem to be trying to find a flaw in the incredibly simple setup, and not finding one, you just refer to it as "nonsensical fiction".
All you are doing here is hurting your own credibility, because how can you measure a force if you don't even know what direction something moves when a force is applied? Unfortunately claims like Shawyer's that you support also drag down the credibility of anyone researching the emDrive. The best thing you could do for emDrive research (other than a continually accelerating rotating demo like you have promised) is to admit that Shawyer's claims are seriously flawed.
-
...Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory, that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379527;image)
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
Thank you Dr. Rodal for your brilliant inputs, you have cleared up many things over this last year in my builds and testing and helped shape my test bed. You could say you helped build this Conundrum of Maxwell.
You need to consider my position, starting with NASA EagleWorks with other labs and companies combining the positive indicators of thrusts by DYIers. I too have seen a small steady state component like thrust with a simple frustum although I've also seen indications of a very high pulsed thrust levels with a multi-mode operations. This would seem to support several theories and possibly point to there is more than one thing going on within the cavity.
I don't have clearer data ... yet, it will happen.
My Best,
Shell
Let's throw this into the mix as well.
The present invention discloses electromagnetic propulsion systems and methods. The electromagnetic propulsion or thrusting systems include a multi-element capacitor, a means for charging and discharging the capacitor, a means for rotating parts of the capacitor, one or more electromagnetic coils, and a means for periodically shaping the intensity, duration and polarity of magnetic fields from the coils. In particular, these systems and methods use interactions between electromagnetic fields and rotating charged elements of capacitors to achieve thrust without expelling mass and with power requirements several orders of magnitude less than current proposed systems.
http://tinyurl.com/z6nsuwz
These as well.
http://tinyurl.com/hdeholh
-
...Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory (**), that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379527;image)
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
Just to add. In the paper, I used variable frequency and in that case, what Shell said about mode shifting would be a very interesting test of that model. The reason I came up with the alternative model using the time constant tau (or Q) is for the EM Drive where the frequency mode is not changing. Per many comments, arguments, etc. the resonant mode, velocity and wavelength changes have been the bane of the EM Drive and prone to criticism. This new theory eliminated the need for those interpretations, but it does not say that mode shifting of the frequency would not work. It might!
Edit: As for Jim Woodward's model. I am still working on it but last night I derived some equations from the PV Model that are eerily similar to the mass variation equations in Jim's model, except instead of varying mass, they vary the refractive index, K, and therefore the damping factor Zeta.
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
That did not answer either question that I asked.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference.
The device I described is very simple to build (you can just throw the balls by hand). And it allows you to replicate the forces caused by differential radiation pressure as described by the graph that you posted.
Your continued refusal to answer the simple questions I asked, to me indicates that you realize that the answer would demonstrate the inconsistency of Shawyer's claims. Instead you seem to be trying to find a flaw in the incredibly simple setup, and not finding one, you just refer to it as "nonsensical fiction".
All you are doing here is hurting your own credibility, because how can you measure a force if you don't even know what direction something moves when a force is applied? Unfortunately claims like Shawyer's that you support also drag down the credibility of anyone researching the emDrive. The best thing you could do for emDrive research (other than a continually accelerating rotating demo like you have promised) is to admit that Shawyer's claims are seriously flawed.
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
-
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
True, but he makes this distinction only when trying to justify the radiation pressure difference between plates. After that, he goes on to saying (if I understand it correctly): "you have a thrust force acting in one direction, therefore there must be a reaction force acting in the opposite direction which causes the device to accelerate" (emphasis mine). There is no mention of photons vs balls, he's saying this as if this is obvious for any mechanical system. To me this is obviously nonsense (even if we assume that the radiation pressure is different, there is a reaction force, but it is a result of the cavity acting upon the photons or their source, not upon itself! Needless to say, it cannot cause the cavity to accelerate since it originates from the cavity. You need to consider forces acting upon the cavity to see whether it accelerates or not, and in which direction it will be moving).
-
...
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
There is a fundamental, huge difference between the Wright Brothers and Shawyer's insistence on an explanation that goes against both theoretical and experimental knowledge:
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
Many things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity goes against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
Shawyer, instead of taking a scientific approach followed by leading universities, ignores such theory, experiments, and numerical analysis (FEKO, COMSOL, Meep) and instead of incorporating new aspects of Physics (like gravitation, or Quantum Mechanics, you name it), insists to this date that thrust of the EM Drive can be solely explained purely on the basis of Newton's 3rd law, Maxwell's equations and frame-independent Special Relativity.
Shawyer may be a really great microwave engineer, but his insistence on his explanation has not served his EM Drive well. The EM Drive would have suffered less resistance if he would have dropped the obviously wrong aspects of his explanation (for example that there is no radiation pressure on the side walls) a long time ago and would have concentrated instead in improving the EM Drive engineering and saying "hey it seems to work, but I am not 100% sure why" and would have solicited the advice of leading scientists and engineers on what may be the reason why it may produce a force (if it does produce a force).
Most successful inventors (Wright Brothers, Edison, Ford...) did not become successful by championing wrong theories. They became successful instead by making their inventions a practical reality. There is still time for Shawyer to do this: to drop the wrong aspects of his theory and to focus, concentrate instead in making his device a practical engineering device for space propulsion.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
-
...
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
There is a fundamental, huge difference between the Wright Brothers and Shawyer's insistence on an explanation that goes against both theoretical and experimental knowledge:
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
Many things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity going against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
Shawyer, instead of taking a scientific approach followed by leading universities, ignores such theory, experiments, and numerical analysis (FEKO, COMSOL, Meep) and instead of incorporating new aspects of Physics (like gravitation, or Quantum Mechanics, you name it), insists to this date that thrust of the EM Drive can be solely explained purely on the basis of Newton's 3rd law, Maxwell's equations and frame-independent Special Relativity.
Shawyer may be a good microwave engineer, but his insistence on his explanation has not served his EM Drive well. The EM Drive would have suffered less resistance if he would have dropped the obviously wrong aspects of his explanation (for example that there is no radiation pressure on the side walls) a long time ago and would have concentrated instead in improving the EM Drive engineering and saying "hey it seems to work, but I am not sure why" and would have solicited the advice of leading scientists and engineers on what may be the reason why may produce a force (if it does produce a force).
Since you are the senior scientist here I'll not pursue this avenue further but a few minor points. If he listened to the academics, he would have long ago given up the concept. But I have to say, if other academics really can't disagree with Shawyer without discounting the whole idea, that's really their fundamental problem. The Wright Brothers figured out that the best aeronautical data at the time was deeply flawed so they build a wind tunnel to experiment with designs. The academics at the time were mistaken. I highly recommend David McCullough's book 'The Wright Brothers'.
-
...
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
There is a fundamental, huge difference between the Wright Brothers and Shawyer's insistence on an explanation that goes against both theoretical and experimental knowledge:
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
Many things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity goes against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
Shawyer, instead of taking a scientific approach followed by leading universities, ignores such theory, experiments, and numerical analysis (FEKO, COMSOL, Meep) and instead of incorporating new aspects of Physics (like gravitation, or Quantum Mechanics, you name it), insists to this date that thrust of the EM Drive can be solely explained purely on the basis of Newton's 3rd law, Maxwell's equations and frame-independent Special Relativity.
Shawyer may be a really great microwave engineer, but his insistence on his explanation has not served his EM Drive well. The EM Drive would have suffered less resistance if he would have dropped the obviously wrong aspects of his explanation (for example that there is no radiation pressure on the side walls) a long time ago and would have concentrated instead in improving the EM Drive engineering and saying "hey it seems to work, but I am not 100% sure why" and would have solicited the advice of leading scientists and engineers on what may be the reason why it may produce a force (if it does produce a force).
Most successful inventors (Wright Brothers, Edison, Ford...) did not become successful by championing wrong theories. They became successful instead by making their inventions a practical reality. There is still time for Shawyer to do this: to drop the wrong aspects of his theory and to focus, concentrate instead in making his device a practical engineering device for space propulsion.
I think the issue is, without "some" theory, he might be unable to get a patent. So he needs a mantra and he has to stick to it because it's in the patent. Maybe?
-
...
I think the issue is, without "some" theory, he might be unable to get a patent. So he needs a mantra and he has to stick to it because it's in the patent. Maybe?
There is no need to have a theory to be able to patent an invention.
I think that Shawyer's "need for theory" may be due to the editors at journals like New Scientist, and investors, that were asking for a theoretical explanation, and perhaps the need of UK government officials to justify funding SPR Ltd. efforts.
First of all there is no effective way to protect an idea, aside from trade secrets (which means telling no one and keeping it ... secret). Copyrights protect expression and patents protects inventions, and neither protect ideas. And it is a basic tenet of patent law that scientific laws (and hence scientific theories) cannot be patented, since they are considered to be part of Nature.
Thus Newton, Maxwell or Einstein could not have patented their theories. What they could do was to invent devices that would use their knowledge to come up with inventions that nobody else though of. Einstein got some patents for a refrigerator. Edison got thousands of patents, and did not try to argue against Maxwell or Hertz, instead Edison like, Ford and the Wright Brothers concentrated on ... their inventions.
-
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
Sorry to go off topic, but... Did Kelvin ever analyse the question of flight seriously? It's always been my understanding that his comments about flight were off-the-cuff; he was, especially in his older years, no stranger to making rash comments. Besides, as far as I know, his often repeated 'heavier than air flying machines are impossible' comment may be apocryphal, all fully sourced comments refer to impossibility of practical and safe flight.
-
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
Sorry to go off topic, but... Did Kelvin ever analyse the question of flight seriously? It's always been my understanding that his comments about flight were off-the-cuff; he was, especially in his older years, no stranger to making rash comments. Besides, as far as I know, his often repeated 'heavier than air flying machines are impossible' comment may be apocryphal, all fully sourced comments refer to impossibility of practical and safe flight.
Yeah, I agree, he was old (died in 1907) and to be rigorous, Lord Kelvin was mainly objecting to whether it would be possible to be able to control the flight path of a heavier than air machine. One of the main inventions of the Wright Brothers was the invention of aerodynamic devices to enable a controlled flight.
But it is also fair to say that Lord Kelvin had not developed a theory of viscous flow for wings like Prandtl, and did not have the knowledge of wind tunnels.
Let's don't forget about the Russians, too. Tsiolkovsky developed one of the first wind tunnels in 1896, 11 years before Lord Kelvin died.
(http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/458679/large/C0130358-Tsiolkovsky_s_first_wind_tunnel-SPL.jpg)(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/e190eb26e2a9406ca50a5e49ab9d2c1f/tsiolkovskii-konstantin-eduardovich-1791857-1991935-russian-physicist-bk03bn.jpg)
-
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
Sorry to go off topic, but... Did Kelvin ever analyse the question of flight seriously? It's always been my understanding that his comments about flight were off-the-cuff; he was, especially in his older years, no stranger to making rash comments. Besides, as far as I know, his often repeated 'heavier than air flying machines are impossible' comment may be apocryphal, all fully sourced comments refer to impossibility of practical and safe flight.
Yeah, I agree, he was old and to be rigorous, Lord Kelvin was mainly objecting to whether it would be possible to be able to control the flight path of a heavier than air machine. One of the main inventions of the Wright Brothers was the invention of aerodynamic devices to enable a controlled flight.
But it is also fair to say that Lord Kelvin had not developed a theory of viscous flow for wings like Prandtl, and did not have the knowledge of wind tunnels.
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
-
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
Not nearly as much as an obligation to test and take seriously every 'unorthodox' idea would. And no, I don't think BlackLight deserves serious consideration.
-
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
I doubt that progress can be made by blindly wasting effort and resources on testing all "exotic" ideas that are out there... there has to be at least some direction. I've heard some people say, "but what if it works, the benefits will be enormous!!"... but the same is true for all sorts of perpetual motion and free energy devices, but you wouldn't suggest that they all should be rigorously tested, or would you?
-
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
I doubt that progress can be made by blindly wasting effort and resources on testing all "exotic" ideas that are out there... there has to be at least some direction. I've heard some people say, "but what if it works, the benefits will be enormous!!"... but the same is true for all sorts of perpetual motion and free energy devices, but you wouldn't suggest that they all should be rigorously tested, or would you?
When you have got multiple teams reporting thrust then it time to put a bit of effort and money into investigating the device seriously.
-
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
Not nearly as much as an obligation to test and take seriously every 'unorthodox' idea would. And no, I don't think BlackLight deserves serious consideration.
That's too bad because it would literally be the perfect power source for EmDrive at kilowatts per Kg. for the device and very small amounts (~3.3 liters per MWhr) of fuel for local space operations. Enough power to do both heavy lifting and cooling without tons of liquid hydrogen.
-
When you have got multiple teams reporting thrust then it time to put a bit of effort and money into investigating the device seriously.
I agree, but only if there is at least some consistency among these reports... at least the same direction of thrust? Having said all that, I'm really looking forward to the NASA paper in December...
-
There are several high profile scientific public figures that give off the cuff pronouncements on topics that come up such as the EmDrive and other new concepts such as BlackLight which NASA actually tested as a new type of propulsion yet was forced to disassociate from because of controversy. I think it slows down progress.
I doubt that progress can be made by blindly wasting effort and resources on testing all "exotic" ideas that are out there... there has to be at least some direction. I've heard some people say, "but what if it works, the benefits will be enormous!!"... but the same is true for all sorts of perpetual motion and free energy devices, but you wouldn't suggest that they all should be rigorously tested, or would you?
I don't blindly put my enthusiasm into anything. I think a lot about things first. Problem is that very good ideas that have solid evidence are routinely discounted and that makes progress a crawl. EmDrive is actually not as bad off as some ideas at getting traction as it does seem to be advancing. Skepticism is good but Skeptimentalism is bad.
-
When you have got multiple teams reporting thrust then it time to put a bit of effort and money into investigating the device seriously.
I agree, but only if there is at least some consistency among these reports... at least the same direction of thrust? Having said all that, I'm really looking forward to the NASA paper in December...
But I thought it's known that different conditions can change the direction so you can't just assume all setups are the same or should produce the same results.
-
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
Sorry to go off topic, but... Did Kelvin ever analyse the question of flight seriously? It's always been my understanding that his comments about flight were off-the-cuff; he was, especially in his older years, no stranger to making rash comments. Besides, as far as I know, his often repeated 'heavier than air flying machines are impossible' comment may be apocryphal, all fully sourced comments refer to impossibility of practical and safe flight.
Yeah, I agree, he was old (died in 1907) and to be rigorous, Lord Kelvin was mainly objecting to whether it would be possible to be able to control the flight path of a heavier than air machine. One of the main inventions of the Wright Brothers was the invention of aerodynamic devices to enable a controlled flight.
But it is also fair to say that Lord Kelvin had not developed a theory of viscous flow for wings like Prandtl, and did not have the knowledge of wind tunnels.
Let's don't forget about the Russians, too. Tsiolkovsky developed one of the first wind tunnels in 1896, 11 years before Lord Kelvin died.
(http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/458679/large/C0130358-Tsiolkovsky_s_first_wind_tunnel-SPL.jpg)(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/e190eb26e2a9406ca50a5e49ab9d2c1f/tsiolkovskii-konstantin-eduardovich-1791857-1991935-russian-physicist-bk03bn.jpg)
He should have realized like the Wright's that birds are both heavier than air and know how to control flight.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
-
...
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Chi is the (scalar) magnetic flux. It is stored inside as a potential energy, and it leaks from the inside through eddy currents in the copper. Anywhere there are voltage drops, you can have magnetic flux passing through that circuit. This is NOT to say that it makes it to the outside, only that it escaped the inside. It never reaches the outside if it gets trapped and dissipated as heat in the copper.
This equation constitutes a conservation of momentum, and a divergence of the field. REGARDLESS if the flux interacts with anything outside the frustum or not. In other words, interaction outside the box is not necessary if the loss is escaping as heat. What moves the frustum is the change in potential energy, causing an asymmetrical divergence of the flux that shifts the center of mass.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
If that is the case then the drive shouldn't work outside of the earth magnetic field.
How high up would we have to launch a em drive to be free of the earth magnetic field?
-
Best,
Shell
Chi is the (scalar) magnetic flux. It is stored inside as a potential energy, and it leaks from the inside through eddy currents in the copper. Anywhere there are voltage drops, you can have magnetic flux passing through that circuit. This is NOT to say that it makes it to the outside, only that it escaped the inside. It never reaches the outside if it gets trapped and dissipated as heat in the copper.
This equation constitutes a conservation of momentum, and a divergence of the field. REGARDLESS if the flux interacts with anything outside the frustum or not. In other words, interaction outside the box is not necessary if the loss is escaping as heat. What moves the frustum is the change in potential energy, causing an asymmetrical divergence of the flux that shifts the center of mass.
Yes, we know from tests from EagleWorks actual IR images of the large endplate which was FR2 I think that heat does escape through the modes, we have seen it in rfmwguy's IR of his small endplate as well.
Best
Shell
PS: Also we need to consider.
Let us also repeat that the classical, relativistic (stationary) Helmholtz equation for an
electromagnetic wavepacket in a waveguide is known to be formally identical to the quantum, non-relativistic (stationary) Schroedinger equation for a potential barrier(2); so that, for instance, the tunneling of a particle under and along a barrier has been simulated [2, 4,7–11,13] by the traveling of evanescent waves along an undersized waveguide. Therefore, the results of this paper are to be valid also for electromagnetic wave propagation along waveguides with a succession of undersized segments (the “barriers”) and of normal-sized segments. This confirms the results obtained, within the classical realm, directly from Maxwell equations [9, 13], as well as by the known series of “tunneling” experiments performed —till now— with microwaves (see refs. [7] and particularly [8]).
∗ ∗
-
If that is the case then the drive shouldn't work outside of the earth magnetic field.
How high up would we have to launch a em drive to be free of the earth magnetic field?
Perhaps you missed the point. The Emdrive may NEED an external magnetic field. Whether it is from the Earth, the Sun, or the Andromeda galaxy is not important. The strength and orientation of the external field may perhaps be critical. Any experimenters willing to include complete Helmholtz coil control as a variable? Any reason to do so? Any reason not to do so?
-
Per Rodal's recent suggestion, I want to make clear that the contents of this post specifically deal only with up to special relativity, and not general relativity, because I am discussing Shawyer's claims. (And a mention of Woodward's paper where he tries to justify the Mach effect without general relativity)
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The fact that light propagates at c as observed in every frame defines a unique frame in my view for light and that has nothing to do with the concept of ether.
It seems like you don't understand what the terms you are using mean. The fact that light propagates at c in every frame is why you can't define a unique frame that it propagates relative to. A unique frame that it propagates relative to is exactly what the concept of the ether is. Unless you are thinking of a "rest frame" for the light, but that doesn't really make sense (any calculations in that frame involve dividing by 0) and it wouldn't be unique anyway since there are an infinite number of different directions for the frame to be moving in.
And exactly how are you so absolutely sure about Shawyer's claims having zero chance of being correct since no one knows exactly how the device works in the first place?
His claims are directly contradictory with each other and with simple physics. For example, as I have been trying to explain to TheTraveller recently, his claims include that a force applied pushing an object to the left will cause it to move to the right. There is a whole list of issues with his claims, you don't even get to that point without first ignoring that some of the claims blatantly break conservation of momentum, while Shawyer claims momentum is conserved and that no new physics is needed.
Experienced physicists sometimes are too quick to reject new ideas that don't immediately fit into their comfortable paradigms.
That may be true in some cases, but it is not inappropriate when you look at how bad Shawyer's claims are in this case.
Previously, you had made a post on the CoE discussion, that captures most of the essence of the issue of CoE:
...
I agree but when you look at the terms, both the gain in kinetic energy of the ship and the loss in kinetic energy of the propellant can dwarf the chemical energy. In the case of an EmDrive or MET device, I believe the ship borrows from the "propellant" even though we don't know what that exactly is. We do know the momentum of the "propellant" is the same as gained by the ship. And the ship borrows from that so the total energy input is whatever the EmDrive needed to make a constant force over a certain time period yet the kinetic energy gain of the ship as well as the loss of the "propellant" are huge in comparison. There is no violation of CoM or CoE. The apparent violation is comparing the total electrical input to the device with the ships final kinetic energy while ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
The biggest problem with Shawyer's claims is that he claims that no new physics is required to explain the emDrive, but to have the properties he claims you would have to have some sort of "propellant" everywhere that you can somehow borrow energy and momentum from like you said.
This is also the problem with Woodward's paper that we were discussing. While the Mach effect uses general relativity and has a way out, Woodward was trying to instead tries to argue that energy could be conserved without this. (The original argument he was trying to argue against only applies if it is a complete propellantless system with no external energy source, and he does not appeal to or account for the existence of propellant in his calculations)
I think we can't expect Shawyer to have solved it all himself. What I get from his explanation is that he expects there to have been a back reaction on something such that the cavity accelerates. The only thing there is, is the light, so it seems he is indicating the light is getting the back reaction. Now this may seem heresy but I think he may be somewhat correct. I will have to try and describe this.
Take a distant observer in the universe who observes the CMB. To him there appears to be an absolute frame of reference. In a cavity co-propagating light waves give a frame of reference also and in the universe we have co-propagating light waves. For that distant observer there is some definite frame that qualifies as moving at the speed of light. Anything moving in that frame for it observes the universe as infinitely flat and time is reduced to practically nothing. Describing an observer moving in that frame observing light still moving at the speed of light seems nonsense to me as the rest of the universe would be seriously warped. So it seems there is some absolute frame of reference which may exclude special relativity in that sense. So maybe he is mistaken to be claiming it holds to special relativity.
So here is the point. Light as it is falling into an event horizon of a black hole appears to be moving against a frame of reference that is in motion. It can escape if it is not in the horizon but will be severely red-shifted as if moving to a non-accelerated frame took its toll. Starting at the event horizon the light seems it can never escape as if space it self is going toward the horizon at the speed of light. It almost seems like a frame of reference.
Here is another. Lets consider frame dragging. A rotating object appears to drag space around with it which we detected with gravity probe b for example and is much larger for objects like rapidly rotating black holes. In such an instance the speed of light around the object in one direction is faster than the speed of light the other direction. This is a lot like a frame of reference also.
Inducing a gravitational effect seems to cause a change in the reference frame for light which can cause frequency shifting. So is Shawyer wrong to say that the back reaction might be on the light? I don't think it is the complete picture, but I wouldn't say he is completely wrong. No force on the side walls of a cavity does worry me, though that is not to say with some conversation he wouldn't agree that there should be radiation force on the side walls.
Of course I would like to see more concrete evidence that it is actually producing thrust even in vacuum. There seems to be more and more evidence in support. Lets hope time will tell.
-
<snip...>
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
-
<snip...>
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
I'm just curious, if we consider the small end plus the side walls as facing forward it seems that is more surface area facing forwards than the single back plate facing backwards. That or the front profile has the same area as the back area. Heat radiated though all copper walls seems like more would be radiated forwards than backwards or maybe the same amount. Unless it could be because of the current patterns in the copper. (I'm reminded of the web page that had the modeled modes, energy density and heat patterns in the cavity.)
If more was being radiated forwards could it be a light drag effect, such as you mentioned to me once before when I was investigating near field phased arrays using dielectric's of high index, to get the phased arrays close together. That is light passing through a medium tends to drag it along with it? (placement of superconductive plate at large end?)
Or is it heat radiated backwards, similar to a thermal thrust. (superconductive plate at side walls and small end?)
Or maybe we are talking the transference of energy of light/currents to another medium by way of work. Leading to a thermal gradient? Just trying to get a grip on it.
-
<snip...>
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
for a detailed discussion formally proving that Q is a function of the geometry of the cavity, the material, and the mode shape.
Please notice that Q scales proportional to the square root of the dimensions:
Q ~ Sqrt[L]
-
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
I'm just curious, if we consider the small end plus the side walls as facing forward it seems that is more surface area facing forwards than the single back plate facing backwards. That or the front profile has the same area as the back area. Heat radiated though all copper walls seems like more would be radiated forwards than backwards or maybe the same amount. Unless it could be because of the current patterns in the copper. (I'm reminded of the web page that had the modeled modes, energy density and heat patterns in the cavity.)
If more was being radiated forwards could it be a light drag effect, such as you mentioned to me once before when I was investigating near field phased arrays using dielectric's of high index, to get the phased arrays close together. That is light passing through a medium tends to drag it along with it? (placement of superconductive plate at large end?)
Or is it heat radiated backwards, similar to a thermal thrust. (superconductive plate at side walls and small end?)
Or maybe we are talking the transference of energy of light/currents to another medium by way of work. Leading to a thermal gradient? Just trying to get a grip on it.
No. Do not think something needs to get outside and interact with something. That is not the case. Momentum does not need to escape to the outside.
Nobody would argue that if I had a mass oscillating on a spring inside the frustum. As the mass oscillates from front to back, the frustum would oscillate the other way, and vise versa. Agreed?
Now, consider the Woodward effect. When the mass moves toward the front, it gains mass, and when it moves toward the back, it loses mass. We've all been thinking in terms of photons, but forget photons. Think about a classical wave in a resonant cavity, where we are constantly adding and subtracting energy at opposite ends.
When the wave moves toward the front, more energy is added by the antenna (which Shawyer has now moved to the small end, where it belongs). When the wave moves toward the back, more energy is lost due to heat dissipation, preferably on the big end plate. Even if the heat doesn't escape the heatsink for hours, it's irrelevant once the energy has left the cavity. It is the oscillation of the energy, combined with high damping (resistance) at one end and high Q and input energy at the other end.
Note: This all came to me as I started typing here... so it's kind of off the cuff, but accurate I think.
Todd
-
I think we can't expect Shawyer to have solved it all himself. What I get from his explanation is that he expects there to have been a back reaction on something such that the cavity accelerates. The only thing there is, is the light, so it seems he is indicating the light is getting the back reaction. Now this may seem heresy but I think he may be somewhat correct. I will have to try and describe this.
...
I think most of your post is generally accurate. The problem is that Shawyer tries to claim that the back reaction is the direction the cavity moves in. The reaction is on the EM wave, when it is reflected, which is what I think your post was getting at. His claim is like pointing a laser at a mirror on a spacecraft and he expects the spacecraft to accelerate towards the source of the laser.
I agree that we can't necessarily expect Shawyer to come up with a theory for how this works himself, I can't come up with one either. But we could expect him to admit when he doesn't have a working theory and instead say something like what Rodal suggested: "hey it seems to work, but I am not 100% sure why" That is a much better approach than insisting you have a working theory when others point out flaws in your theory.
-
Nobody would argue that if I had a mass oscillating on a spring inside the frustum. As the mass oscillates from front to back, the frustum would oscillate the other way, and vise versa. Agreed?
Be careful when using this as a starting point. The phrase 'the frustum would oscillate' has a built in assumption that forces (read: changes in momentum) from the spring would propagate from their mounting point on one end of the frustum to the opposite end extremely quickly. Generally speaking, this is valid. The speed of propagation (speed of sound) through a solid material is much larger than the instantaneous velocity of any spring I've ever seen.
However, in the case of RF, we must expect the opposite to be true. An EM wave might bounce back and forth many hundreds of thousands of times before any one momentum change can be observed on the frustum as a whole; never mind the fact that most (all?) of the antennas I've seen in the threads so far should be radiating more or less equally in the forward and backwards directions; as we'd expect from a standing wave in a resonant cavity.
Barring any new physics, I believe you're back to radiation pressure: a net outward push in all directions, but no net momentum change.
-
Per Dr. Rodal's request, I've made a few meep runs to calculate the energy distribution in a resonant cavity. This may involve several posts, but all are for the same cavity resonating in what is thought to be a TE013 mode at 1996 MHz. First a couple of .gifs, of slices of the cavity in the x and in the y coordinate directions. For this cavity model, the .gif images taken this way are indistinguishable irrespective of the source bandwidth, so only one set is shown. This at a bandwidth of 49 MHz.
The next data set of images plots the cavity energy and meep calculated force in the axial direction. Pardon that the x coordinates are not the same. The energy plot shows each value within the computational lattice from 0 to 155, while the force plot shows 21 force detectors from the cavity big end to small end, with no points outside of the cavity. Again, bandwidth is 49 MHz.
If the bandwidth label confuses, note that BWm=0.025 is the same bandwidth as 49 MHz.
The final set is posted next.
-
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
for a detailed discussion formally proving that Q is a function of the geometry of the cavity, the material, and the mode shape.
Please notice that Q scales proportional to the square root of the dimensions:
Q ~ Sqrt[L]
Okay, I see that the math does show Q ~ δ and Q ~ 1/δ as valid results, depending on how you write them out.
The confusion stems from one step in your derivation, that is mathematically correct, but the physics may not be a good representation of a cavity with a “constant” mode frequency. You write;
ω = 2 ρ / (μ δ2)
Which implies that the frequency is a “function of the skin depth”. In my mind, that’s looking at the physics upside down. The “skin depth is a function of the frequency”, not the other way around, at least not physically.
If I do not use this to convert frequency to be in terms of skin depth as you did, then your Q ~ δ of the material, just as it is in the reference, for a constant frequency. But I would NOT believe that if the skin depth changes, it will affect the frequency. The frequency depends on the dimensions of the cavity, not the skin depth. So the equation above is mathematically correct, but physically it is an incorrect dependence relationship, that is being put into the equation, resulting in an incorrect interpretation that Q ~ 1/δ, when in fact, Q ~ δ makes a lot more sense physically. Because, as δ "of the material" decreases resistance goes up for the "same frequency", and Q goes down, not the other way around.
-
The final data set shows the energy and the meep force within the cavity when resonating at the same 1996 MHz frequency with a narrow bandwidth of 19 MHz, or BWm = 0.010.
I was not surprised to note that the narrow bandwidth stored more energy in the cavity though Q was the same value irrespective of bandwidth. But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth. And no, I didn't get the two curves confused. Perhaps someone can explain that to me but clearly force calculations can not be substituted for energy calculations.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the earths magnetic field has already been eliminated in most experiments.
-
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
for a detailed discussion formally proving that Q is a function of the geometry of the cavity, the material, and the mode shape.
Please notice that Q scales proportional to the square root of the dimensions:
Q ~ Sqrt[L]
Okay, I see that the math does show Q ~ δ and Q ~ 1/δ as valid results, depending on how you write them out.
The confusion stems from one step in your derivation, that is mathematically correct, but the physics may not be a good representation of a cavity with a “constant” mode frequency. You write;
ω = 2 ρ / (μ δ2)
Which implies that the frequency is a “function of the skin depth”. In my mind, that’s looking at the physics upside down. The “skin depth is a function of the frequency”, not the other way around, at least not physically.
If I do not use this to convert frequency to be in terms of skin depth as you did, then your Q ~ δ of the material, just as it is in the reference, for a constant frequency. But I would NOT believe that if the skin depth changes, it will affect the frequency. The frequency depends on the dimensions of the cavity, not the skin depth. So the equation above is mathematically correct, but physically it is an incorrect dependence relationship, that is being put into the equation, resulting in an incorrect interpretation that Q ~ 1/δ, when in fact, Q ~ δ makes a lot more sense physically. Because, as δ "of the material" decreases resistance goes up for the "same frequency", and Q goes down, not the other way around.
Todd, that Q increases with diminishing skin depth, and Q decreases with increasing skin depth, as factor of the Volumetric/Surface energy ratio, is a result well known in all standard treatises, and not a subject for disagreement.
The following result is both mathematically and physically correct:
Q=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)
Talking about unphysical results: are you seriously proposing now that an electromagnetically resonant cavity has Q diminishing with diminishing skin depth, when keeping constant (∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA) ?
Besides a number of standard treatises (Collin, etc.) this dependence of Q with skin depth has been verified here numerically by painstaking work by me and X_Ray:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474351#msg1474351
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476683#msg1476683
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476704#msg1476704
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476709#msg1476709
and other posts.
Please go over this physics carefully and consult a number of references.... One can write different expression as a function of skin depth depending on what variables one uses to factor. What I wrote is correct, both mathematically and physically.
I highly recommend to you this book edited by Kip Thorne:
Systems with small dissipation
Braginsky, Mitrofanov and Panov
which deals with the relationship of Q and skin depth in detail (Eq. 6-11 page 51, 65, 67). This book was also recommended by Notsosureofit.
You can get it used in good conditions for $15
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Small-Dissipation-V-Braginsky/dp/0226070735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476902948&sr=8-1&keywords=Systems+with+small+dissipation++Braginsky%2C+Mitrofanov+and+Panov&tag=mit-tb-20
EDIT: To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about
-
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the earths magnetic field has already been eliminated in most experiments.
Your solid belief in EmDrive seems from insufficient information. In fact non EmDrive experiments so far eliminated earth magnet field. Worse, EW 2014 paper added on top of the Earth magnetic field their own strong rare earth magnetic field from the damper. Their coming 2016 paper likely still has a damper, just this time partially enclosed with shielding, but that shielding is insufficient (this was shown in my experiment with alike damper).
-
The final data set shows the energy and the meep force within the cavity when resonating at the same 1996 MHz frequency with a narrow bandwidth of 19 MHz, or BWm = 0.010.
I was not surprised to note that the narrow bandwidth stored more energy in the cavity though Q was the same value irrespective of bandwidth. But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth. And no, I didn't get the two curves confused. Perhaps someone can explain that to me but clearly force calculations can not be substituted for energy calculations.
The force you are calculating using Meep cannot, as presently calculated, result in any thrust. As I understand it, what you refer to as a force is just the integration of a component of Maxwell's stress tensor. The force you are calculating is self-balanced in the equations of motion. The equations built-in in Meep satisfy conservation of energy and conservation of momentum and, as I understand your post (please correct me if this is incorrect) there is nothing that you have included in the analysis to "open" the system: no general relativity is included, or other external fields. Hence I am not clear as to what expectations did you have on this force calculation when you write <<But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth>>. For example, for equilibrium considerations, there is also a force, as part of equilibrium, due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector that you have to consider in the analysis. The Poynting vector is not constant with time in your Meep calculation. You are calculating a solution in the transient regime.
Haus and Penfield (MIT Radiation Lab) wrote some time ago that there was not much physical significance to a component of the Maxwell stress tensor in a transient problem where the derivative of the Poynting vector is not zero...
-
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
for a detailed discussion formally proving that Q is a function of the geometry of the cavity, the material, and the mode shape.
Please notice that Q scales proportional to the square root of the dimensions:
Q ~ Sqrt[L]
Okay, I see that the math does show Q ~ δ and Q ~ 1/δ as valid results, depending on how you write them out.
The confusion stems from one step in your derivation, that is mathematically correct, but the physics may not be a good representation of a cavity with a “constant” mode frequency. You write;
ω = 2 ρ / (μ δ2)
Which implies that the frequency is a “function of the skin depth”. In my mind, that’s looking at the physics upside down. The “skin depth is a function of the frequency”, not the other way around, at least not physically.
If I do not use this to convert frequency to be in terms of skin depth as you did, then your Q ~ δ of the material, just as it is in the reference, for a constant frequency. But I would NOT believe that if the skin depth changes, it will affect the frequency. The frequency depends on the dimensions of the cavity, not the skin depth. So the equation above is mathematically correct, but physically it is an incorrect dependence relationship, that is being put into the equation, resulting in an incorrect interpretation that Q ~ 1/δ, when in fact, Q ~ δ makes a lot more sense physically. Because, as δ "of the material" decreases resistance goes up for the "same frequency", and Q goes down, not the other way around.
Todd, that Q increases with diminishing skin depth, and Q decreases with increasing skin depth, as factor of the Volumetric/Surface energy ratio, is a result well known in all standard treatises, and not a subject for disagreement.
The following result is both mathematically and physically correct:
Q=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)
Talking about unphysical results: are you seriously proposing now that an electromagnetically resonant cavity has Q diminishing with diminishing skin depth, when keeping constant (∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA) ?
Besides a number of standard treatises (Collin, etc.) this dependence of Q with skin depth has been verified here numerically by painstaking work by me and X_Ray:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474351#msg1474351
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476683#msg1476683
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476704#msg1476704
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476709#msg1476709
and other posts.
Please go over this physics carefully and consult a number of references.... One can write different expression as a function of skin depth depending on what variables one uses to factor. What I wrote is correct, both mathematically and physically.
I highly recommend to you this book edited by Kip Thorne:
Systems with small dissipation
Braginsky, Mitrofanov and Panov
which deals with the relationship of Q and skin depth in detail (Eq. 6-11 page 51, 65, 67). This book was also recommended by Notsosureofit.
You can get it used in good conditions for $15
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Small-Dissipation-V-Braginsky/dp/0226070735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476902948&sr=8-1&keywords=Systems+with+small+dissipation++Braginsky%2C+Mitrofanov+and+Panov&tag=mit-tb-20
EDIT: To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about
How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, and a higher permeability material will help.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Edit: I see how it will scale as sqrt(R), I am holding R and w constant to see how to enhance existing designs.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
-
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
......
It doesn't matter about how the Emdrive works, but it matters much about CoE.
It may conduce to an infinite generation of energy if Quantum Vacuum auto-restores. It depends on how this auto-restoration works.
If we compare the Quantum vacuum to the sea, when a propeller is used to accelerate a ship, the momentum of the generated currents is not kept a long time, but it means that the entire sea gained a very little momentum. Would it be the same here ? does the entire quantuum vacuum got a very little dark momentum ?
Hadn't thought of that, but yes. The 'wake' begins as a local disturbance, which propagates to infinity and dissipates. There is an assumption of CoM, so the vacuum in the rest of the universe eventually acquires a momentum in the opposite direction.
I think that it is important about a theory to know if it breaks CoM or CoE in our 3D+time universe. I do not tell that it is a nullification argument, but that the consequences of any theory about CoE and CoM needs to be clear.
I'm implicitly assuming CoE. The only 'odd' thing is that the 'aether' experiments founding relativity show that motion of any material vacuum is undetectable. So, any momentum and energy transferred to the vacuum will appear to have vanished. Conversely, one can 'explain' apparent breakage of CoE/CoM as transfers to/from the vacuum.
Consider for a minute why I considered a massive vacuum was appealing in the first place. For a massive object, E/p ~ (1/2 m v^2)/mv ~v can be as small as you like. The EMdrive experiments seem to require E/P<<c. In fact, we could say E/P ~1 for the high force systems postulated. So v~1.
But for a 'Jet Ski' model of the EMDrive, the momentum transfer to a massive vacuum would be around
F=(mass/sec)*v = ρAv*v where ρ is the density of the medium, A is the cross-sectional area of the plume.
For a DIY EMdrive, A~0.1, F~0.2 and so we can deduce ρ = 2 kg/m^3
So if you think that density of the vacuum of that level is possible, the idea might work. To me it seems high, and is actually about 18*10^25 larger than the cosmological estimate from Wiki. I guess you can find comfort in the fact that it is below the quantum vacuum energy density estimate, but it is fairly cold comfort....
Now that I hope having at least a little understood this theory, what would make the local mass-density heterogenous ?
The obvious answer is galactic EM-fields. If the EM fields in the EM drive can manipulate the vacuum, why not natural EM fields? It's worth noting that the EM field has an outrageously special position in space-time and causality, so why not expect the EM field to be coupled to the flow of space...
-
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the earths magnetic field has already been eliminated in most experiments.
If so, I haven't seen the results. Several experimenters have oriented their Emdrive at various angles to the local magnetic field, and obtained varying "thrust" results. As far as I know, no experimenter has built the necessarily large Helmholts coils to NULLIFY the external magnetic field in the volume that the Emdrive is occupying. This would be a required experiment to prove that the Emdrive is NOT interacting with any external magnetic fields. All we know at this point is that it does, but not how or why, nor if the interaction is responsible for the "thrust". Such an interaction would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it certainly hasn't been objectively quantified.
I suppose that waiting for the construction of an Emdrive that actually produces unequivocal thrust would be a first step, before complicating the issue further than it is.
-
The use of Q in the equations has bothered me since the beginning.
Lots of undefined assumptions in Q.
If you could get rid of Q in the equations, I sort of think the CoE arguments will fall by the wayside.
Infinite Q is simply unphysical. Sure makes for lots of over unity CoE arguments around here though.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Like this? It's non-linear.
-
No. Do not think something needs to get outside and interact with something. That is not the case. Momentum does not need to escape to the outside.
Nobody would argue that if I had a mass oscillating on a spring inside the frustum. As the mass oscillates from front to back, the frustum would oscillate the other way, and vise versa. Agreed?
Now, consider the Woodward effect. When the mass moves toward the front, it gains mass, and when it moves toward the back, it loses mass. We've all been thinking in terms of photons, but forget photons. Think about a classical wave in a resonant cavity, where we are constantly adding and subtracting energy at opposite ends.
When the wave moves toward the front, more energy is added by the antenna (which Shawyer has now moved to the small end, where it belongs). When the wave moves toward the back, more energy is lost due to heat dissipation, preferably on the big end plate. Even if the heat doesn't escape the heatsink for hours, it's irrelevant once the energy has left the cavity. It is the oscillation of the energy, combined with high damping (resistance) at one end and high Q and input energy at the other end.
Note: This all came to me as I started typing here... so it's kind of off the cuff, but accurate I think.
Todd
First, if the frustum moves momentum does get to the outside. It just maybe did not begin from the outside.
The trivial comment above aside, after reading your above post and a couple of the responses, an idea occurred to me that may be worth closer examination, than I am currently able to give...
Before I start, what I understand of the practical design of an EMDrive and EM mode simulations (which is imperfect at best) all comes from the discussions here. Keeping this in mind...
What occurred to me is that under most circumstances direct interaction between the resonant microwaves inside a frustum with the frustum walls should end in a transfer of energy in the form of heat. But the way that transfer occurs may not be completely symmetrical, especially when considering how the EM mode and different materials affect the process.
To keep things as simple as possible, consider a shortened frustum side wall (which I believe you suggested at one point), a superconducting large end plate as indicated in Shawyer's latest patent and a TE213 mode shape (hope I got that right)....
Am I correct in my understanding that the skin depth of the super conducting plate is less than the copper or even silver plated copper of the frustum as a whole, and that the TE213 mode shape focuses a higher intensity resonant EM field at or near the small end plate? If so...
It would seem that one could look at the EM field inside the frustum almost as if it were a an oscillating EM field, similar in some respects to SeeShell's mention of evanescent waves, except without the virtual particles and asymmetrically filling the frustum interior. The oscillating field doing work on the atoms of the frustum walls proportional to the local field intensity/density. Essentially pushing and pulling on atoms to perhaps the skin depth of the involved wall material. Over most of the interior surface the interaction between the walls and the lower or weaker field density would very rapidly be randomized as heat. However, at the small end or wherever the intensity of the resonant EM field is high the atoms would be pushed and pulled relative to the plane of the involved surface, vibrating in resonance with the field.., and it is here where the thought occurred to me that as an EM field pulls an atom toward the interior of the frustum the transfer of momentum/force to the underlying atoms would be limited by the strength of the atomic/molecular bonding between the atoms and the strength/intensity of the EM field, while when pushed toward the surface there might be a small increase in the transferred kinetic energy associated with the atoms actually impacting one another. The net force or momentum would be perpendicular to and toward the involved surface and as it moves beyond the skin depth rapidly randomized as heat. However, there might be a small net force perpendicular to and toward the surface. In this case the small end plate.
If this makes any sense, the reduced skin depth of the superconducting large end plate might reduce the effect at the large end and it might explain why results involving the TM212 mode where the field intensity is more centrally located in the frustum (again hope I got that right), where it's interaction with the sidewalls would result in a smaller net thrust toward the small end, dependent on the angle of the sidewalls.
There would be no CoM/CoE issue here, but the drive's efficiency, if c is a true universal limit, might be velocity dependent... and there would also be a need to control the absolute field strength inside the frustum, to avoid degrading the frustum walls to rapidly. Essential a strong field might just pull atoms off of the walls.
-
The final data set shows the energy and the meep force within the cavity when resonating at the same 1996 MHz frequency with a narrow bandwidth of 19 MHz, or BWm = 0.010.
I was not surprised to note that the narrow bandwidth stored more energy in the cavity though Q was the same value irrespective of bandwidth. But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth. And no, I didn't get the two curves confused. Perhaps someone can explain that to me but clearly force calculations can not be substituted for energy calculations.
The force you are calculating using Meep cannot, as presently calculated, result in any thrust. As I understand it, what you refer to as a force is just the integration of a component of Maxwell's stress tensor. The force you are calculating is self-balanced in the equations of motion. The equations built-in in Meep satisfy conservation of energy and conservation of momentum and, as I understand your post (please correct me if this is incorrect) there is nothing that you have included in the analysis to "open" the system: no general relativity is included, or other external fields. Hence I am not clear as to what expectations did you have on this force calculation when you write <<But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth>>. For example, for equilibrium considerations, there is also a force, as part of equilibrium, due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector that you have to consider in the analysis. The Poynting vector is not constant with time in your Meep calculation. You are calculating a solution in the transient regime.
Haus and Penfield (MIT Radiation Lab) wrote some time ago that there was not much physical significance to a component of the Maxwell stress tensor in a transient problem where the derivative of the Poynting vector is not zero...
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130)
and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043)
R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing. ???
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing. ???
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
...sorry about that, Aero. I'll excuse myself from this part of the conversation for now. :-[
-
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
I'm just curious, if we consider the small end plus the side walls as facing forward it seems that is more surface area facing forwards than the single back plate facing backwards. That or the front profile has the same area as the back area. Heat radiated though all copper walls seems like more would be radiated forwards than backwards or maybe the same amount. Unless it could be because of the current patterns in the copper. (I'm reminded of the web page that had the modeled modes, energy density and heat patterns in the cavity.)
If more was being radiated forwards could it be a light drag effect, such as you mentioned to me once before when I was investigating near field phased arrays using dielectric's of high index, to get the phased arrays close together. That is light passing through a medium tends to drag it along with it? (placement of superconductive plate at large end?)
Or is it heat radiated backwards, similar to a thermal thrust. (superconductive plate at side walls and small end?)
Or maybe we are talking the transference of energy of light/currents to another medium by way of work. Leading to a thermal gradient? Just trying to get a grip on it.
No. Do not think something needs to get outside and interact with something. That is not the case. Momentum does not need to escape to the outside.
Nobody would argue that if I had a mass oscillating on a spring inside the frustum. As the mass oscillates from front to back, the frustum would oscillate the other way, and vise versa. Agreed?
Now, consider the Woodward effect. When the mass moves toward the front, it gains mass, and when it moves toward the back, it loses mass. We've all been thinking in terms of photons, but forget photons. Think about a classical wave in a resonant cavity, where we are constantly adding and subtracting energy at opposite ends.
When the wave moves toward the front, more energy is added by the antenna (which Shawyer has now moved to the small end, where it belongs). When the wave moves toward the back, more energy is lost due to heat dissipation, preferably on the big end plate. Even if the heat doesn't escape the heatsink for hours, it's irrelevant once the energy has left the cavity. It is the oscillation of the energy, combined with high damping (resistance) at one end and high Q and input energy at the other end.
Note: This all came to me as I started typing here... so it's kind of off the cuff, but accurate I think.
Todd
An issue just occurred to me, if the energy can't escape the cavity but we still have the gradient in thermal energy distribution. While there may be a thermal transfer of energy to the lower part of the cavity, that energy will build up at the large end, and will naturally want to flow by conduction to the narrow end. That flow of thermal energy back to the narrow end would possibly cancel what was gained by the initial flow of energy from the antenna to the large end. It seems to me something has to escape but in a way that most of the energy is lost from the currents/light.
For light striking an object the red shift (energy transfer) is ridiculously small so very little energy is naturally transferred by light upon any reflection. In the system with two free to move mirrors and recycled photons we can end up with the light being effectively drained of its energy by recycled Doppler shifting, which explains the efficiency increase over a laser thruster. Also momentum is conserved in the earlier mentioned system.
For heat escaping outside the cavity, I can see how momentum is conserved (skin depth penetration of heat) and escaping photons from just one side of the cavity. I have a hard time understanding how the heat photons that do escape the cavity are effectively drained of their energy so that the energy is more effectively transferred to the cavity than by a laser thruster.
To do recycled Doppler shifting of light in a closed cavity seems to require some asymmetric change in mass of the light inside, (to my limited knowledge) and to change the mass of the light inside seems to require some change in the vacuum. A change in the vacuum seems to require some change in the damping of light. A change in the damping seems as if you are saying it requires some gradient in dissipation of energy (thermally so to speak). Vacuum gains energy light loses energy, like climbing out of a gravity well? To me that sounds like a back reaction of light on the (not fully formed) vacuum pairs (which may be a bit of a leap on my part). Maybe I am being a bit short sighted so I'll just try and see how this develops for now and I might learn something.
-
To do recycled Doppler shifting of light in a closed cavity seems to require some asymmetric change in mass of the light inside, (to my limited knowledge) and to change the mass of the light inside seems to require some change in the vacuum. A change in the vacuum seems to require some change in the damping of light. A change in the damping seems as if you are saying it requires some gradient in dissipation of energy (thermally so to speak). Vacuum gains energy light loses energy, like climbing out of a gravity well? To me that sounds like a back reaction of light on the (not fully formed) vacuum pairs (which may be a bit of a leap on my part). Maybe I am being a bit short sighted so I'll just try and see how this develops for now and I might learn something.
Wild thought: Perhaps this is where evanescent waves figure into the picture? (Evanescent waves as particles.)
-
Have had a nagging thought which I need to share regarding recent theories raising the importance and interactivity between the QV and the EM field densities. This is all highly theoretical but it would have great explanatory power.
Electromagnetic density excites QV causing dark matter effects!
Due to increased QV excitation by high gravity and correlated electromagnetic stimuli on QV, QV is excited and produces more massful particles. Due to short lifespan they cannot be seen but still exert an 'instantaneous' gravitational field. Implication is also that black holes produce their singularity due to runaway QV excitation. The more it is excited the more dark matter it produces, thus the more massive (consider EM fields in planetary and solar and galactic cores!) the more QV will be excited. However, system gravity does not increase beyond the capacity of local (we therefore assume variable QV due to modern interpretation of Coulomb's law, but this is uncertain) QV density + gravitational potential of mass already within the system. Electromagnetism thus could also be considered a symptom of the excitation of the QV. If QV is variable, perhaps higgs bosons are simply local extrema of QV energy density? I posit that when at ground state, the QV would still contain a pseudoparticle (discrete (?) Planckian superfluid/spacetime ether - NOT a brane) just an inobservable one. Perhaps gravitational waves (especially when harmonized) cause QV excitation, and thus the question is what is the threshold at which gravity would generate QV excitation and can a mathematical relationship between QV fluctuating mass generation and electromagnetic field density be established? Also what determines the type of QV virtual particle generated - is it a certain gravitational strength, if so then this process surely is not random?
-
Anyone else wondering what Gilo Industries is doing with the JV with Roger?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Shawyer has continued to develop the EmDrive, and over the last year began hinting that he is working with an unnamed UK aerospace company on a second generation superconducting thruster that will produce thrust many orders of magnitude greater than that observed by Eagleworks or any other laboratory (view his latest patent application here).
However, he has confirmed that the company he is working with is none other than Gilo Industries Group, the inventors of the personal aviation paramotor vehicle Parajet Skycar, which famously flew TV survivalist Bear Grylls close to Mount Everest in 2007 and is now being developed as an all-terrain flying car.
"Gilo Cardozo approached me. I confirm that we are in a joint venture. Universal Propulsion is the name of the joint venture and it's located in Dorset," said Shawyer.
"It's a very innovative, modern young company. He has an excellent track record. He employs professional scientists and engineers who reviewed the science of the EmDrive. Like many people who don't say much, these guys go through it very carefully. Gilo has the engineering expertise and resources to do this, so it's a good match between us."
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
you think that's behind schedule? Ha! I have been waiting patiently for Moller to produce their skycar since the mid to late eighties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
i even spent some couch cushion found change for some penny stocks--just in case.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing. ???
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
...sorry about that, Aero. I'll excuse myself from this part of the conversation for now. :-[
eh - it happens - where I'm headed is to take a look at the interaction of atmospheric molecules with the forces internal to the cavity. That's because all experiments have been performed using cavities containing a significant number of particles. Even the vacuum chambers used have particle density on the order of 10^14 particles per liter while at atmospheric pressure the number of particles is Avogadro's number per 22.4 liters , 6.022140857 × 10^23. To my mind those are significant numbers and the particle behavior should be looked at.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130)
and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043)
R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
How about the circuit below. I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactance
Ql=w*L/R, Qc=1/(w*R*C), sub into Q=1/(1/Ql+1/Qc)
I get:
Q1=1/(R1/w/L+w*C*R1)
Q2=1/((R2/w/L+w*C*R2)
Qave=(Q1+Q2)/2
I was comparing it in my head to a ribbon on a boot where I pull the ribbon one way and apply more pressure with my boot for increased resistance. The other way I release pressure on the ribbon when sliding the other way. Should still be equilibrium forces between them.
Putting a thermal mirror between the resistors, more heat radiation should go one way than the other.
One thought was that the shape of the cavity gives the large end more thermal capacity at thermal equilibrium.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130)
and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043)
R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
How about the circuit below. I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactance
Ql=w*L/R, Qc=1/(w*R*C), sub into Q=1/(1/Ql+1/Qc)
I get:
Q1=1/(R1/w/L+w*C*R1)
Q2=1/((R2/w/L+w*C*R2)
Qave=(Q1+Q2)/2
I was comparing it in my head to a ribbon on a boot where I pull the ribbon one way and apply more pressure with my boot for increased resistance. The other way I release pressure on the ribbon when sliding the other way. Should still be equilibrium forces between them.
Putting a thermal mirror between the resistors, more heat radiation should go one way than the other.
One thought was that the shape of the cavity gives the large end more thermal capacity at thermal equilibrium.
Thanks. I showed the parallel RLC you show the series RLC. I assume both are valid options. In the parallel circuit, there will be a DC offset in the current. In the series circuit, there will be a DC offset in the voltage. If you consider the stored energy in the cavity to have a DC offset, that will make the force/area on one end greater than on the other.
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too? :)
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Thanks. You probably meant that as a rhetorical question but my gut reaction (for today only) is that the progression of likeliness goes as magnetic fields first, Evanescent waves next and gravity/spacetime last.
If it really were possible to somehow create a magnetic field in space such as to react against without creating the equal and opposite reaction on your device (but carried away by the field) that would seem to be the easiest to both understand and engineer. But I would start with a configuration and concept from scratch, not with the EmDrive cavity. Cannae claims their device uses Lorentz forces and I noted with interest that there is a section in Woodward's book regarding Mach Effect Lorentz thrusters.
Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
He keeps the velocity low in the atmosphere and allows acceleration in space. Such a machine would spend about 20 minutes climbing, then gently apply acceleration to match the decrease in earth's pull to keep a constant 1g. It could land softly on the Moon in about four hours.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
With all this talk about flying cars, all Shawyer/Gilo need to do is show an emdrive thruster hovering under its own power in a laboratory setting. Even with a tether providing the power, that kind of demonstration could only be explained by it working or the demonstration being a special effects hoax.
-
...Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
It is simple to show that there cannot be any evanescent waves transmitted through the copper cavity thickness (which is much, much larger than the skin depth) of the EM Drives being tested, to the outside of the EM Drive, because they are supposed to be close cavities made of conductive metal with a thickness much larger than the skin depth (unless the EM Drive has gaps or holes in the cavity, in which case they would no longer be a closed cavity, and then they should be designed to enhance this, which is opposite to what Shawyer and others have proposed). Thus any evanescent waves are confined to the interior of a closed EM Drive cavity, and cannot result in self-acceleration of the cavity by themselves, due to conservation of momentum. Just like any other type of internal wave (for example, propagating waves or standing waves) cannot result in self-acceleration of an EM Drive by themselves. Rather, an interaction with an external field is necessary to explain any such acceleration. That's why McCulloch resorts to Unruh waves, White to a degradable vacuum, Notsosureofit to General Relativity, etc.
Please notice that several references on evanescent wave coupling appearing on NSF threads deal instead with frustrated total reflection (FTIR), where a third medium with a higher refractive index than a low-index second medium is placed within less than several wavelengths distance from the interface between the first medium and the second medium. This process is called "frustrated" total internal reflection (FTIR) and is analogous to quantum tunneling. The transmission coefficient for FTIR is highly sensitive to the spacing between the third medium and the second medium (the function is approximately exponential until the gap is almost closed), so this effect has often been used to modulate optical transmission and reflection with a large dynamic range.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some reliable data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about the ammount of thrust being generated this way or using the suggested device and the used equation.
.
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Hey I just took the thrust curve in the patent and calculated the resultant cavity loaded Q and from that applied the Q to Roger's thrust equation. A Loaded Q of 3 billion seems high but accelerator cavities easily exceed that all the time and at a lot higher input power than 1kW of Rf.
Sure we await for the published data but assuming the patent thrust curves are correct and understanding EmDrive engineering, the specific force can be calculated.
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Assuming your hypothetical vehicle is performing this stunt on Earth, the 1 kilowatt of radio frequency energy is dissipated as thermal energy in the walls of the cavity as the vehicle accelerates from rest at 32 ft/sec^2 until it slams into the ground.
In the second case, the vehicle remains stationary, while the cavity dissipates the same 1 kilowatt.
Is there any proof, anywhere, from anyone, that this is not the case? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, I acknowledge that I'm ignoring your supposition that the Emdrive in your "thought experiment" can actually provide the thrust you suppose. Until someone, somewhere, uniquivocally provides proof of thrust, let alone kilograms of thrust, your question is as useful as the decades old "Saturday Night Live" skit titled "What If Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly".
Still waiting for your rotary test platform results. Not suppositions. Results. It's been over a year now. Anything to report that can be independantly verified as have been provided by the likes of SeaShells and Rfmwguy?
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
-
An interesting article by Harold White*, Jerry Vera, Paul Bailey, Paul March, Tim Lawrence, Andre Sylvester, David Brady, "Dynamics of the Vacuum and Casimir Analogs to the Hydrogen Atom". (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2621174030893098179&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14)
The vacuum medium can be modelled as a virtual plasma consisting of predominantly electron-positron ephemeral pairs. Although there will be a spectrum of other fermion-antifermion particle pairs, the dominant members of the medium at any given time will be the e e- − + pairs.
...
This paper has explored the idea of the quantum vacuum not being an absolute immutable and non-degradable state, and studied the ramifications of the quantum vacuum being able to support non-trivial spatial variations in “density”. These considerations showed no predictions that were contrary to observation, and in fact duplicated predictions for energy states associated with the primary quantum number. An explicit function of vacuum density spatial variation was derived such that it also predicted correct energy levels for the primary quantum numbers, and provided a simple acoustic model that could be numerically studied using the multi-physics software tool, COMSOL. This study showed that the quantum vacuum can support longitudinal wave modes...
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes. You should not ignore the force due to the rate of change of the Poynting vector.
-
Using the radius provided for CG on the minor end plate shape chart, I was able to derive the minor end plate radius using the 10° angle GCA. Using this information and the cavity geometry I was able to extrapolate the rest of the cavity dimensions for the recent Shawyer patent application. All dimensions are in cm.
It's pretty small and is probably operating in c-band.
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
I would guess the net force on air that can't escape from the cavity should also be expected to be zero, as would be the force of light that can't escape the inside of the cavity with a vacuum inside. Unless something escapes with momentum that is.
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
Look up MASER and the resonant frequencies of water vapor.
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ed27621eeda7d4e5d4419749fd7b78c4139ad20a)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/974397987c326f752778fdb65d64b1741af535cd)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6dc7ccd4d59811229ecfe0f48027586d62b71178)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/61acc296c67ef0b3e8de99ea67499ff62613f6f9)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce364a0d4dae0f1bcf6e3372ff259921ee66496d)
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
surely you jest! Me read that, let alone understand it.
It seems to me like the force on neutral (uncharged) air particle is similar to the radiation pressure force on a solar sail and if the particle were part of the tail of a comet, there would be no problem understanding the force. The problem results from the end of the cavity reflecting radiation pressure to the other side of the air particle. The net pressure on the air particle would be zero if it were a point. But the particle is an extended body, it has thickness and so the forces cannot be equal on both sides. That is because the energy within the cavity starts at zero at the big end plate, reaches a maximum past the center of the cavity and reduces to zero again at the small end plate. Consequently any extended body within the cavity must experience an energy differential across its length WRT the axis.
This same consideration holds when instead of looking at energy, one looks at radiation pressure force (the integral of the Maxwell stress tensor by frequency over a detector area ) at locations from one end of the cavity to the other. The radiation force starts at zero at the big end plate, builds to a maximum past the center and diminishes to zero at the small end. Therefore, any extended body internal to the cavity must experience a differential force down its length WRT the axis. Unfortunately again, at any given point the radiation pressure force seems to be equal in both directions so again the point experiences no differential. Air molecules are not points however, they are extended bodies for my analysis.
So what I am hoping to find is an agreement on the nature of force exerted on an extended body that internal to the cavity.
I am trying to get a handle on this force. Whatever it is, it can't be zero and for now I don't really need to look at the side forces. If looking at the axial forces justifies looking at side forces, I will do so later.
-
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
surely you jest! Me read that, let alone understand it.
It seems to me like the force on neutral (uncharged) air particle is similar to the radiation pressure force on a solar sail and if the particle were part of the tail of a comet, there would be no problem understanding the force. The problem results from the end of the cavity reflecting radiation pressure to the other side of the air particle. The net pressure on the air particle would be zero if it were a point. But the particle is an extended body, it has thickness and so the forces cannot be equal on both sides. That is because the energy within the cavity starts at zero at the big end plate, reaches a maximum past the center of the cavity and reduces to zero again at the small end plate. Consequently any extended body within the cavity must experience an energy differential across its length WRT the axis.
This same consideration holds when instead of looking at energy, one looks at radiation pressure force (the integral of the Maxwell stress tensor by frequency over a detector area ) at locations from one end of the cavity to the other. The radiation force starts at zero at the big end plate, builds to a maximum past the center and diminishes to zero at the small end. Therefore, any extended body internal to the cavity must experience a differential force down its length WRT the axis. Unfortunately again, at any given point the radiation pressure force seems to be equal in both directions so again the point experiences no differential. Air molecules are not points however, they are extended bodies for my analysis.
So what I am hoping to find is an agreement on the nature of force exerted on an extended body that internal to the cavity.
I am trying to get a handle on this force. Whatever it is, it can't be zero and for now I don't really need to look at the side forces. If looking at the axial forces justifies looking at side forces, I will do so later.
Yeah... it's not as easy as I'd like it to be either, but atoms don't really behave like billiard balls. Pity, that appendix along with chapters 1 & 2, will teach you how to distinguish an inertial reference frame from a non-inertial reference frame, by measuring the spectrum energy density of the vacuum to determine your acceleration.
The direction of the momentum changes depending on if it is spontaneous emission or stimulated emission, and an atom doesn't simply absorb momentum unless it absorbs a photon. So there are lots of probability distributions to calculate, to find out that there is probably just a push "away" from the antenna. (My guess.)
Edit: What I can imagine happening though is this; If the antenna is at the small end, it will push the air mass toward the back, and move the frustum forward, such that the CM of the system stays put. Whereas, if the antenna is in the back, it will have the opposite effect. This is something that can be eliminated in hard vacuum, or at least evacuate the frustum.
-
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
Look up MASER and the resonant frequencies of water vapor.
Is resonance the same as absorption and emission.... (a retorical question)
I am sure you misunderstood my question. Water and water vapor interacts with microwaves because the polarized character of the water molecules interact with the alternating EM field... and heat up.
They don't absorb and emit the microwaves... unless I have missed something somewhere.
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
Yes he said that Mr. Traveller. But I am not sure he wanted that company to be known to the public at the moment. If you want him to continue his work as I presume we all want we need to give him some space.
I hope that people here appreciate that he tries to be more open lately with what he is doing. We definitely know more about his research and development then at the start of this. Many things were cleared lately. Especially why he could not and can not release some information as MoD is watching almost everything he do. Many of the topics we know were only rumors and he confirmed some of them, which gives his research a bit more credibility. If you remember at the start we knew very very little and this shourd of mystery about it was perfect target for the critics.
I am sure that he might want to share more information, but NDA under the MoD in UK would permit them to observe questions asked by the journalist and scrap them if they do not like it.
Now it all gets to the crucial point. Only the data, tests and videos of the actual EmDrive units be it first or second generation will push us forward. As well as the scientific debate here.
If I may Mr. Traveller, make sure also that you carefuly ask Mr. Roger, what to release and what to keep off the public for the moment.
This is not ment as any offence to anyone. As I think that we all are trying to have same goal in the end - a clear explenation why it works or not and what this research gave us.
-
Well, at the moment I don't know about forces but here is what the energy density looks like over one cycle. X view and Y view, I can't tell which is which.
-
If I may Mr. Traveller, make sure also that you carefuly ask Mr. Roger, what to release and what to keep off the public for the moment.
Roger confirmed the SPR / Gilo JV in the IBTimes interview. The JV data is public knowledge on the UK Companies site.
Had Roger or Gilo wanted to keep the relationship secret, then Giles Cardozo would not be listed as holding 60% of the JV stock. Simple to use a trust or offshore company to do this.
Searching the UK companies site it is clear there was a major alteration in the structure and number of companies in the Gilo group about 2 weeks after the JV was registered. Could be nothing, could be a new structure to support the JV across all Gilo group companies.
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Assuming your hypothetical vehicle is performing this stunt on Earth, the 1 kilowatt of radio frequency energy is dissipated as thermal energy in the walls of the cavity as the vehicle accelerates from rest at 32 ft/sec^2 until it slams into the ground.
In the second case, the vehicle remains stationary, while the cavity dissipates the same 1 kilowatt.
Is there any proof, anywhere, from anyone, that this is not the case? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, I acknowledge that I'm ignoring your supposition that the Emdrive in your "thought experiment" can actually provide the thrust you suppose. Until someone, somewhere, uniquivocally provides proof of thrust, let alone kilograms of thrust, your question is as useful as the decades old "Saturday Night Live" skit titled "What If Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly".
Still waiting for your rotary test platform results. Not suppositions. Results. It's been over a year now. Anything to report that can be independantly verified as have been provided by the likes of SeaShells and Rfmwguy?
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
As for my rotary test rig there is "movement at the station". End Nov should see me at the fabricator of my 2 machined, spherical end plate, multilayer coated thrusters and doing a few tests with a new custom 250W Rf amp. Once accepted, the program to fully qualify them on static Thrust force (small to big force vector) via a scale and accelerative Reaction force (big to small force vector) on a rotary test rig will start.
Will try to have something to "show and tell" this year. While there have been a few setbacks in the fabrication of the high Q thrusters, I expect to start doing public demos of the rotary test rig with dual pulse mode thrusters mid 2017.
Expected accelerative reaction force at 250W forward is around 500mN or 2N/kWrf. Liquid helium cooling may increase that to greater than 20N/kWrf.
-
EmDrive Forces (dual)
What may have been overlooked is Roger's theory predicts the generation of 2 forces in the EmDrive:
1) Thrust force with a vector small to big that is the product of the radiation pressure differential, which includes axial side wall forces. This force can be measured via a scale and does not need the EmDrive to move. Well not move very much. This Thrust force was measured in both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as detailed in the 2 results reports Roger released. Also released were independent reviews of the Thrust forces that were measured. Reports attached.
2) Reaction force that provides acceleration, has a vector big to small and is the equal but opposite force to the Thrust force. This force can only be measured via free acceleration of the EmDrive.
Both of these forces can be and have been measured but not at the same time.
I know of no theory that describes the generation of both experimentally measured forces other than Roger's.
Something to consider for both testing and theory consideration.
Red arrows and text are my add.
-
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
-
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the earths magnetic field has already been eliminated in most experiments.
If so, I haven't seen the results. Several experimenters have oriented their Emdrive at various angles to the local magnetic field, and obtained varying "thrust" results. As far as I know, no experimenter has built the necessarily large Helmholts coils to NULLIFY the external magnetic field in the volume that the Emdrive is occupying. This would be a required experiment to prove that the Emdrive is NOT interacting with any external magnetic fields. All we know at this point is that it does, but not how or why, nor if the interaction is responsible for the "thrust". Such an interaction would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it certainly hasn't been objectively quantified.
I suppose that waiting for the construction of an Emdrive that actually produces unequivocal thrust would be a first step, before complicating the issue further than it is.
EmDrives have produced thrust since 2002. No waiting required. Done deal.
Please read Roger's Experimental EmDrive report and the independent reviewer's comments in regard to local magnetic fields.
The orientation with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field was shown to have no influence on the thrust measured.
For my testing I also tried various orientations to the local magnetic field and in 3 different locations. No measurable effect. So no need for Helmholts coils as easy to reorient the test rig to the local magnetic field.
-
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
Although I'm not X-ray, I'll take the opportunity to say that I'll take Eagleworks' paper as confirmation that EM Drives do something of great interest. I'm particularly eager to learn what they've observed regarding scaling these machines, in order to increase their output. Unless the Eagleworks paper already contains it, I will need to see additional work and evidence to believe EM Drives can achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one.
-
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
Although I'm not X-ray, I'll take the opportunity to say that I'll take Eagleworks' paper as confirmation that EM Drives do something of great interest. I'm particularly eager to learn what they've observed regarding scaling these machines, in order to increase their output. Unless the Eagleworks paper already contains it, I will need to see additional work and evidence to believe EM Drives can achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one.
It is my understanding that all the EW data shows Thrust scaling with power, as with all of Roger's tests, especially the Flight Thruster test data which shows this very clearly.
It is expected that Thrust varies linear with input power as the internal EmWave stored cavity energy increases as the input power increases as does the EmWave momentum and ability to generate radiation pressure.
Q also affects EmWave stored cavity energy as higher Q generates a longer 5x TC cavity fill time and thus takes more energy to fill the cavity. Here increasing Q acts as does increasing Farad & Hehry.
As for the thrust to weight ratio, it is all about the amount of stored cavity energy that can be achieved, in which higher Q is a much better option than higher input power.
Please note the patent application thrust curves, which are also cavity Q loaded fill and discharge curves, show it takes approx 1 sec to complete 5x TC of cavity fill and then discharge. From that the cavity TC is approx 0.2 sec and from that time value the cavity loaded Q can be calculated as approx 3x10^9. From that Q value, the Thrust can be calculated as approx 1,000kg/kWrf. Not magic, just what happens if the stored cavity energy is very high from the very high Q.
My only question is the 3x10^9 loaded Q value. While accelerator cavities now achieve 10^10 or even 10^11 Q, it seems that maybe Roger has achieved 3x10^9 for his new EmDrive design and if so, the stored cavity EmWave energy and momentum would be more than capable of delivering 1,000kg/kWrf of Thrust.
-
The orientation with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field was shown to have no influence on the thrust measured.
For my testing I also tried various orientations to the local magnetic field and in 3 different locations. No measurable effect. So no need for Helmholts coils as easy to reorient the test rig to the local magnetic field.
Earth magnetic field may affect the test results with DC in the power supply loop and ground loop. This effect is small, for a typical experiment it is roughly on the level of or less than a hundred micro newtons. It is a problem for EW experiment which reported micro newtons, but they did not assess the orientation of the test apparatus; It is not a problem for The Traveller who reported 8mN (8000 micro newtons) or Mr. Shawyer who reported even higher newtons, who as said assessed the orientation. They may have other problems other than the Earth magnetic field.
Somebody proposed that the Earth magnetic field might interact with RF in an experiment. I do not know the mechanism so I can't comment.
-
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
-
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
-
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
In your description, the source of the photons will have reacted backwards when they were initially emitted, so there never needs to be an impact at all on the original photon source.
Creating emWaves in a cavity with momentum transfers momentum to those waves, and when it reflects, momentum shifts to the other direction. The sum of momentum of the cavity including the photons will remain 0 by conservation of momentum, but since the photons are propagating in both directions, they will have zero net momentum at resonance. Since the system has zero net momentum, this means its center of Energy is at rest. Moving energy from 1 side of the cavity to the othercould never result in a total shift of more than a half cavity length, but the actual total for the energy levels we are discussing is negligible.
-
Interesting paper:
"A RESONANT-CAVITY TORQUE-OPERATED WATTMETER FOR
MICROWAVE POWER
By R. A. BAILEY, Ph.D., B.Sc, Graduate. {The paper was first received \9th October, 1954, and in revised form 2\st March, 1955. // was published as an INSTITUTION MONOGRAPH in June, 1955.)
SUMMARY
A sensitive method of microwave power measurement is described which makes use of the mechanical force exerted by the electromagnetic field on a small vane in a resonant cavity. It is shown that the force on the vane is a simple function of the Q-factor of the cavity, the power absorbed in it and the perturbation of its resonant frequency caused by the vane. The results of a comparison between an experimental wattmeter based on this principle and a water calorimeter are given, and the requirements of a practical instrument are discussed."
Follow on work referencing Cullen.
Bottom line, in a resonant cavity higher Q increases radiation pressure, just as Roger states.
-
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
In your description, the source of the photons will have reacted backwards when they were initially emitted, so there never needs to be an impact at all on the original photon source.
Creating emWaves in a cavity with momentum transfers momentum to those waves, and when it reflects, momentum shifts to the other direction. The sum of momentum of the cavity including the photons will remain 0 by conservation of momentum, but since the photons are propagating in both directions, they will have zero net momentum at resonance. Since the system has zero net momentum, this means its center of Energy is at rest. Moving energy from 1 side of the cavity to the othercould never result in a total shift of more than a half cavity length, but the actual total for the energy levels we are discussing is negligible.
Not correct.
The EmWave guide wavelength and momentum / radiation pressure potential vary as the diameter varies. The sum of all the forces toward the small end, including axial forces on the side walls toward the small end are not the same as the sum of all the forces on the big end.
Roger has measured this radiation pressure differential Thrust force (small to big force vector) with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives. That result was independently confirmed.
-
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
-
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
You don't seem to understand the concept of conservation of energy, but first how about you stop avoiding my questions about forces in a simple setup that exactly replicates the type and direction of forces in Shawyer's theory.
Also, independently confirmed by who? The papers he published with review (by someone who admitted to not having the right background for a full review) had several concerns about inconsistencies in the data listed by the reviewer, even though the reviewer's overall conclusion seemed positive, this seems to have come from him assuming the parts he didn't understand were correct despite the issues he recognized.
For those who understand how forces work, a confirmation of a force from the small to big end is evidence against the emDrive working, because that is in contradiction with the force direction measured by most experiments.
-
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
You don't seem to understand the concept of conservation of energy, but first how about you stop avoiding my questions about forces in a simple setup that exactly replicates the type and direction of forces in Shawyer's theory.
Also, independently confirmed by who? The papers he published with review (by someone who admitted to not having the right background for a full review) had several concerns about inconsistencies in the data listed by the reviewer, even though the reviewer's overall conclusion seemed positive, this seems to have come from him assuming the parts he didn't understand were correct despite the issues he recognized.
For those who understand how forces work, a confirmation of a force from the small to big end is evidence against the emDrive working, because that is in contradiction with the force direction measured by most experiments.
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Now about the hovering EmDrive and the apparent non violation of CofE as nothing is gaining velocity or acceleration vs the reference frame of the Earth?
The independent reviewer was selected by the UK MOD, who was assisting the Crown, in evaluating the results Roger has achieved using the Crown's funds. Seems the reviews came up to scratch as following the Experimental EmDrive review, Roger received more funds to build the Demonstrator EmDrive and following that positive review, he received further funds to build the Rotary test rig. I do expect a test report and review on the dynamic tests and the rotary test rig will one day see the light of day as Roger did receive all the funds.
-
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Please go back and answer my questions. Here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) is a link to the post if you lost it. This simple example is a best way I can explain to you that you are claiming something will move to the right when pushed to the left, and your post simply does not make sense to people who know what a force is.
-
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Please go back and answer my questions. Here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) is a link to the post if you lost it. This simple example is a best way I can explain to you that you are claiming something will move to the right when pushed to the left, and your post simply does not make sense to people who know what a force is.
Yet that is what the experimental results show. Which means Roger has discovered a new way to transfer momentum from EmWave to frustum that is outside conventional understanding simply because it has never been observed before. BTW don't all forces have 2 components? A action force and an equal but opposite reaction force? Well here the action force is the Thrust force (produced by the differential radiation pressure, which includes the side walls) and the reaction force is the Reaction force. Simple. Yes? What is the problem?
Momentum is conserved as frustum gained momentum is sources via EmWave lost momentum. So CofM is OK. Just a new way to tap into EmWave momentum. No free momentum.
Look at it this way, if the Thrust force could cause cavity acceleration, the cavity would move big end 1st, but it doesn't and moves small end 1st due to the equal but opposite Reaction external force to the radiation pressure differential internal Thrust force.
Here is another way to look at it.
External Reaction force + internal big end to small end radiation pressure force, including side walls = internal small end to big end radiation pressure force. So the forces balance and the cavity accelerates small end 1st.
-
To quote you:
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
-
Consider a hypothetical typical flying car, of mass, say 1,000 kg, equipped with a 5th generation Shawyer EmDrive with a thrust to weight ratio of 1.
This drive is turned on and the gently floating car is given a good push up until it rises at constant velocity above the Earth all the way to Geosynchronous orbit. By my back of the envelope calculations, it will gain a potential energy of about 50,000,000,000 Joules, or 14,000 kilowatt hours which is also about the energy contained in 165 Tesla model S car battery packs. (Of course, at 544 kg each, those battery packs would add 90 metric tons to the flying car).
Unfortunately, as you can see, there's no way for this car to make it to orbit without adding external energy (such as solar power), magical new energy storage devices that are extraordinarily dense, or straight up violating conservation of energy.
My coffee mug, or CofDrive, as I have just named it, also exerts a constant force against the coaster where it rests, powered only by steaming hot caffeinated beverage. Its figure of merit shows a constant force for each handle on the mug! This force is real, and can be absolutely consistently and repeatedly measured by a simple scale in all laboratories. Sadly, it isn't very useful for space flight, because it doesn't do any useful work (which is the integral of the force over the distance it applies) because there is a non-moving table in the way.
I hope the EmDrive, which similarly appears to exert a constant force per input power, can be more useful for space travel than my CofDrive, but clearly, a force in the laboratory is not nearly enough to conclude that.
Some parties subscribe to the following logic: Physics cannot explain the force of the EmDrive. The EmDrive provably shows repeatable force. Therefore, Physics is proved Wrong. Therefore the EmDrive is exempted from the rules of that provably false Cult of Physics, such as Conservation of Momentum, Conservation of Energy, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and any other now falsified crazy ideas from those old deluded crackpots such as Newton, Einstein, Maxwell or Carnot.
To me, that's painfully naive and frankly, not very helpful. I suggest not extrapolating micro-Newton forces from a non-accelerating EmDdrive in a laboratory all the way to flying cars until someone has at least tested the EmDrive's ability to do work as well as provide thrust. They are NOT THE SAME.
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Something is conserving the momentum change producing the force. That something, whether Mach effects or something else is carrying away energy. Of course some is lost as heat too.
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Something is conserving the momentum change producing the force. That something, whether Mach effects or something else is carrying away energy. Of course some is lost as heat too.
Take the exact same vehicle, put it in deep space and turn on the EmDrive, which immediately accelerates the 1,000kg mass at 1g for as long as the power is on. Same vehicle that hovered 1 meter above the ground on Earth as long as the power was on.
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.
-
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
-
A rare scam-zoological sighting: Maxwell's Demon...
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/argonne-researchers-posit-way-to.html
-
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Only to get to the height of 1 meter then, like an object on a table, no energy is expended against gravity. Of course, energy is expended to maintain the EmDrive. That gets expended in whatever form the "propellant" is and as waste heat in my view just as in a Space-X hovering rocket.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Like this? It's non-linear.
Thinking more about your theory, please comment on whether (and if not, why not) your theory is effectively nullified by the test results of Zeller and Kraft, at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who performed experiments with a cylindrical cavity having a HDPE dielectric ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller ) (NSF member Zellerium https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47993 ). The cylindrical metal cavity was symmetric, but the HDPE was placed asymmetrically in the cylindrical cavity. Their conclusion was that there was no thrust. This experiment by Zeller and Kraft is a falsification of a hypothesis that thrust is generated simply by the HDPE (whether by electrostriction or other means), when asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity.
Their experiments at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, showing no thrust when using HDPE dielectric asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity, can be seen in the attachments on https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller under "Researcher" section on Kurt Zeller's LinkedIn profile.
A theory explaining thrust of the EM Drive based on HDPE dielectric would need to also explain Zeller's experiments showing no thrust.
-
A rare scam-zoological sighting: Maxwell's Demon...
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/argonne-researchers-posit-way-to.html
The state of the field of 2nd law challenges has advanced greatly in the last few years. The following amounts to a working contradiction of Duncan's Paradox, designed to prove 2nd law violations cannot occur, but amounts to a macro scale Maxwell Demon. The process invented by Daniel Sheehan at San Diego is called Epicatalysis and Duncan's Paradox was designed to show Epicatalysis can't work as a 2nd law violator but the data shows it can. Recent evidence shows small scale room temperature effects as well.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicatalysis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox
This process is experimental macro scale chemical systems not theoretical nanoscale quantum systems as in the paper referenced. The work is peer reviewed and published but the physics community is as yet pretty silent on the issue. I think they are in wait and see mode. It's quite a shock.
Relevance to space flight: any system that can recycle waste heat into high grade energy would be useful in space applications.
Relevance to EmDrive: if you're worried about momentum conservation, heck, not even the Second Law is sacred anymore! So you can relax. ;D
-
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Yet the same vehicle, if placed in deep space and switched on would accelerate the 1,000kg vehicle at 1g. Some would claim this violates CofE. So why no CofE violation when the same vehicle hovers 1 meter above the Earth?
Special rules for special cases?
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Hey I just took the thrust curve in the patent and calculated the resultant cavity loaded Q and from that applied the Q to Roger's thrust equation. A Loaded Q of 3 billion seems high but accelerator cavities easily exceed that all the time and at a lot higher input power than 1kW of Rf.
Sure we await for the published data but assuming the patent thrust curves are correct and understanding EmDrive engineering, the specific force can be calculated.
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ad02805870308b178c0d89b7d06425574a3c3fad)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/b90cbbb21bab6176be53f98daf7df78ca7407e17)
As an example of the above parameters, a typical 9-cell SRF cavity for the International Linear Collider[5] (a.k.a. a TESLA cavity) would have G=270 Ω and Rs= 10 nΩ, giving Qo=2.7×1010.
The effective Q of the whole circuit is given by 1/Qeffective=1/Q0+1/Qexternal.
Question: What is the impedance of your external RF-source?
-
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
This is not an accelerator cavity with a big hole in the middle so particles can be accelerated through the hole by the massive E field. The only losses are the eddy current heating and the momentum xfer to the accelerating mass.
It is loaded Q as the momentum loss from the EmWave is another loss factor to the cavity that drains stored cavity energy faster than just eddy current heating losses. The force curves published in the patent application are the result of the lost cavity energy and so they are in fact the loaded Q fill and decay time for the cavity with 5x TC being 1~ sec and 1x TC being ~0.2 sec.
From that you can calc the cavities effective loaded Q as the forces were generated.
Ql = 2 Pi Freq Tc. Assuming 2.45GHz excitement, the loaded Q is approx 3x10^9.
-
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
This is not an accelerator cavity with a big hole in the middle so particles can be accelerated through the hole by the massive E field. The only losses are the eddy current heating and the momentum xfer to the accelerating mass.
It is loaded Q as the momentum loss from the EmWave is another loss factor to the cavity that drains stored cavity energy faster than just eddy current heating losses. The force curves published in the patent application are the result of the lost cavity energy and so they are in fact the loaded Q fill and decay time for the cavity with 5x TC being 1~ sec and 1x TC being ~0.2 sec.
From that you can calc the cavities effective loaded Q as the forces were generated.
Ql = 2 Pi Freq Tc. Assuming 2.45GHz excitement, the loaded Q is approx 3x10^9.
If you eliminate R in the resonant circuit (superconductive resonator) there is still Rs, this is the source resistance. It can't be ignored, its part of the circuit.
EDIT
I am sure we discussed this in the past. If my memory serves you has agreed with this at that time.
The antenna defines a specific coupling factor between the inner and the outer circuit. The same antenna what is used to couple the RF-energy into the cavity is able to couple the energy out, back into the source with the same effectivity. This is basic microwave 101 knowlage.
-
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Yet the same vehicle, if placed in deep space and switched on would accelerate the 1,000kg vehicle at 1g. Some would claim this violates CofE. So why no CofE violation when the same vehicle hovers 1 meter above the Earth?
Special rules for special cases?
Because it is not gaining kinetic energy. It is merely hovering in space against gravity so the force generated by the device does no work (work meaning in the physics sense of Force times distance). If you hold out your arm, you are doing no work against gravity but you are still expending chemical energy to maintain your muscle integrity. The hovering EmDrive would be expending energy at a fixed rate (power) to maintain the force against gravity without doing work. Yet in deep space, it accelerates. When it does that it gains kinetic energy. Some then believe it eventually violates CoE. But if it can hover at all, it can accelerate in space also and it cannot "know" what it's velocity is so as to ever stop accelerating.
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYD7EMpA_bY
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41475.0
-
...Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
It is simple to show that there cannot be any evanescent waves transmitted through the copper cavity thickness (which is much, much larger than the skin depth) of the EM Drives being tested, to the outside of the EM Drive, because they are supposed to be close cavities made of conductive metal with a thickness much larger than the skin depth (unless the EM Drive has gaps or holes in the cavity, in which case they would no longer be a closed cavity, and then they should be designed to enhance this, which is opposite to what Shawyer and others have proposed). Thus any evanescent waves are confined to the interior of a closed EM Drive cavity, and cannot result in self-acceleration of the cavity by themselves, due to conservation of momentum. Just like any other type of internal wave (for example, propagating waves or standing waves) cannot result in self-acceleration of an EM Drive by themselves. Rather, an interaction with an external field is necessary to explain any such acceleration. That's why McCulloch resorts to Unruh waves, White to a degradable vacuum, Notsosureofit to General Relativity, etc.
Please notice that several references on evanescent wave coupling appearing on NSF threads deal instead with frustrated total reflection (FTIR), where a third medium with a higher refractive index than a low-index second medium is placed within less than several wavelengths distance from the interface between the first medium and the second medium. This process is called "frustrated" total internal reflection (FTIR) and is analogous to quantum tunneling. The transmission coefficient for FTIR is highly sensitive to the spacing between the third medium and the second medium (the function is approximately exponential until the gap is almost closed), so this effect has often been used to modulate optical transmission and reflection with a large dynamic range.
Thanks. Actually, I meant the question as broader than just involving EmDrive cavities. If such waves can allegedly carry large momentum, can they be generated and used to produce momentum from electrical energy to drive spacecraft irrespective of specifics? Thanks.
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41475.0
Since I saw something on the device rotating, it could be any number of things from a Dean Drive effect to just a little thrust against the air.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive
-
If the EM Drive works it has to be pushing of off something like a field and transferring momentum to/from that field. Maybe it is a Machian-like field where it pushes off the whole universe. To me the EM Drive is like putting a battery powered fan inside of a sealed cardboard box and when powered on the box moves. It just can't be that way unless it is touching something "outside" of the box, even if that something isn't obvious or known.
I also think that many keep discussing the theories as to how the EM Drive might work as a means to determine IF it works. That isn't correct. It either works or it doesn't. It either moves in free space without expelling propellant or it doesn't. If it does work it will be the greatest invention of all time in my opinion. It won't just revolutionize space travel, it will revolutionize everything in our lives.
P.S. I read this thread first thing every morning, the suspense is almost too much to take. The YouTube video we are all waiting for has yet to be posted...
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Like this? It's non-linear.
Thinking more about your theory, please comment on whether (and if not, why not) your theory is effectively nullified by the test results of Zeller and Kraft, at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who performed experiments with a cylindrical cavity having a HDPE dielectric ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller ) (NSF member Zellerium https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47993 ). The cylindrical metal cavity was symmetric, but the HDPE was placed asymmetrically in the cylindrical cavity. Their conclusion was that there was no thrust. This experiment by Zeller and Kraft is a falsification of a hypothesis that thrust is generated simply by the HDPE (whether by electrostriction or other means), when asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity.
Their experiments at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, showing no thrust when using HDPE dielectric asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity, can be seen in the attachments on https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller under "Researcher" section on Kurt Zeller's LinkedIn profile.
A theory explaining thrust of the EM Drive based on HDPE dielectric would need to also explain Zeller's experiments showing no thrust.
I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction.
Primarily, it seems they excited a TM mode of the cylinder. The TM mode concentrates the E field on the end plates and the H field on the side walls. The E field does not cause nearly as much (if any) power dissipation. It is the H field can cause power dissipation, and dissipation on the side walls of a cylinder will have a symmetrical effect. In order to have power dissipation, the material must have some conductivity. The resistivity of HDPE is too high, so there is very little power dissipation there. Instead, I think it's practically invisible to the MW's.
If they construct a cylinder where one end is copper and the other end is steel, they might see a different result.
-
,,,I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction. ...
Argumentative.
Zellerium himself reported his own experiments here:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
and he reported them very clearly as zero thrust.
As documented at NSF in several of his posts, Zellerium reported this at http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results after much thought and deliberation.
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
Are you suggesting that all reported results without internal batteries are spurious effects, Shawyer, Fetta, everyone building devices here?
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
Yes, for example the magnets are not fixed straight, but all at different angles. This could produce an effect against the surrounding air (kind of fluid) and propel it in a way a ventilator would do.
On the other hand the applied force works in both directions and should be canceled out. hmm ???
Nevertheless slightly differences in the builded setup could produce thrust due to different air resistivity against the sourrounded structure.
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
Looks like a simple gyroscope performing attitude control. Does it work on a linear air bearing?
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise :) to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to ;)
Like this? It's non-linear.
Thinking more about your theory, please comment on whether (and if not, why not) your theory is effectively nullified by the test results of Zeller and Kraft, at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who performed experiments with a cylindrical cavity having a HDPE dielectric ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller ) (NSF member Zellerium https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47993 ). The cylindrical metal cavity was symmetric, but the HDPE was placed asymmetrically in the cylindrical cavity. Their conclusion was that there was no thrust. This experiment by Zeller and Kraft is a falsification of a hypothesis that thrust is generated simply by the HDPE (whether by electrostriction or other means), when asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity.
Their experiments at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, showing no thrust when using HDPE dielectric asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity, can be seen in the attachments on https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller under "Researcher" section on Kurt Zeller's LinkedIn profile.
A theory explaining thrust of the EM Drive based on HDPE dielectric would need to also explain Zeller's experiments showing no thrust.
I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction.
Primarily, it seems they excited a TM mode of the cylinder. The TM mode concentrates the E field on the end plates and the H field on the side walls. The E field does not cause nearly as much (if any) power dissipation. It is the H field can cause power dissipation, and dissipation on the side walls of a cylinder will have a symmetrical effect. In order to have power dissipation, the material must have some conductivity. The resistivity of HDPE is too high, so there is very little power dissipation there. Instead, I think it's practically invisible to the MW's.
If they construct a cylinder where one end is copper and the other end is steel, they might see a different result.
The tanδ(ε“)of the dielectric material produces some losses at one end ;)
This effect acts on the E component of the field.
Zellerium's experiment did not confirm the first patent from Shawyer related to the emdrive:
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41475.0
Doesn't the Coriolis effect produce a torque on the gyroscope on the end of the balance?
-
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
Are you suggesting that all reported results without internal batteries are spurious effects, Shawyer, Fetta, everyone building devices here?
I gave my opinion as to what the proper rules for a contest for a propellant-less space drive should be, to be able to judge a winner.
FACTS: In space you do not have air at 1 atmospheric pressure and you cannot run a practical space drive with power cords
No, your suggested interpretation of what I advised is a non-sequitur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))
;)
-
Take the exact same vehicle, put it in deep space and turn on the EmDrive, which immediately accelerates the 1,000kg mass at 1g for as long as the power is on.
Cool! You hit light speed in only about 354 days!
-
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
This is not an accelerator cavity with a big hole in the middle so particles can be accelerated through the hole by the massive E field. The only losses are the eddy current heating and the momentum xfer to the accelerating mass.
It is loaded Q as the momentum loss from the EmWave is another loss factor to the cavity that drains stored cavity energy faster than just eddy current heating losses. The force curves published in the patent application are the result of the lost cavity energy and so they are in fact the loaded Q fill and decay time for the cavity with 5x TC being 1~ sec and 1x TC being ~0.2 sec.
From that you can calc the cavities effective loaded Q as the forces were generated.
Ql = 2 Pi Freq Tc. Assuming 2.45GHz excitement, the loaded Q is approx 3x10^9.
If you eliminate R in the resonant circuit (superconductive resonator) there is still Rs, this is the source resistance. It can't be ignored, its part of the circuit.
EDIT
I am sure we discussed this in the past. If my memory serves you has agreed with this at that time.
The antenna defines a specific coupling factor between the inner and the outer circuit. The same antenna what is used to couple the RF-energy into the cavity is able to couple the energy out, back into the source with the same effectivity. This is basic microwave 101 knowlage.
Let's consider the coupling factor:
When it's just 1 it means the external Qext is as high as the Q0 of the resonator, the coupling is "critical", VSWR≈1. Now let's focus in a situation where Q0 of the cavity is the dominant part (1/Qeff=1/Q0+1/Qext´while K<<1, K=Q0/Qext),
the coupling factor(K) is low ...
Now we have a huge problem because the VSWR is huge, therefore the energy delivered into the resonator is small compared to the possibilities of the HF source generator.
Do you see the problem??
-
,,,I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction. ...
Argumentative.
Zellerium himself reported his own experiments here:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
and he reported them very clearly as zero thrust.
As documented at NSF in several of his posts, Zellerium reported this at http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results after much thought and deliberation.
The conclusions of the paper say "inconclusive". Regardless however, the electrical permittivity of HDPE is ~10^-11, and the dissipation factor ~10^-4, so that power dissipation will be proportional to 10^-15. Also, the HDPE is practically transparent to MW's, so the majority of the reflection I believe is happening at the surface of the copper behind the insert, not at the surface of the insert. In other words, HDPE insert will have at most a very tiny effect, due to very tiny losses, due to such a high electrical resistance.
I would also like to remind you that EW test of the Cannae drive showed no thrust "except" when the dielectric insert was present. So doesn't that confound @Zellurium's results as "inconclusive", just as he said in the paper?
Also, my model is based on shedding (divergence) of (scalar) magnetic flux, as @notsosureofit realized, from my conservation of flux equation. If that is the case, then using a TM mode in the cylinder concentrates the E field on the end plates, not the B field. So any B field shedding is happening on the side walls, which will be divergence-less. Therefore, no thrust is predicted by my present model.
Another thing I've been looking at is, that with a TM mode, the current flows along the length of the cavity, and resistance will go "UP" at the small end where the width of the conductor is narrower. With a TE mode, the current flows around the circumference of the cavity, and the resistance will go "UP" at the big end where the length of the conductor is longer. So there may be a change in direction based on TM vs TE modes, and how they apply. IMO, the TE mode will have thrust in a cylinder if one end has higher power dissipation than the other end, and that resistor is not transparent, allowing reflection off an identical copper end plate. In Zellurium's experiment, these conditions were not satisfied due to the relatively small losses of HDPE and the use of a TM mode shape.
That's my story and I'm satisfied with it. I prefer to work with magnetic fields, which should cause a much larger power dissipation, due to higher current flow.
-
...Another thing I've been looking at is, that with a TM mode, the current flows along the length of the cavity, and resistance will go "UP" at the small end where the width of the conductor is narrower. With a TE mode, the current flows around the circumference of the cavity,...
?
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. The boundary condition is that any electrical component parallel to a perfect electrical conductor is zero.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/electric-field-boundary-conditions.php
(http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/notangential.gif)
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
-
...Another thing I've been looking at is, that with a TM mode, the current flows along the length of the cavity, and resistance will go "UP" at the small end where the width of the conductor is narrower. With a TE mode, the current flows around the circumference of the cavity,...
?
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. The boundary condition is that any electrical component parallel to a perfect electrical conductor is zero.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/electric-field-boundary-conditions.php
(http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/notangential.gif)
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
That is odd because I thought there were currents even for a superconductor. The reduced skin depth because the current has less resistance and can more effectively stop the light from passing through. That is the incoming light with its associated electric field encounter the cavity wall. The cavity wall currents are stimulated to generate a counter-current which negates/reduces the magnetic/electric field from existing beyond the wall. As a result the electric field generated from the accelerating currents makes an electric field inside that is equal and opposite to the incident electric field but the magnetic field inside (with opposite velocity v x E = B) constructively interferes. Hence the magnetic field parallel to the metal plate and the non-existent parallel electric field at resonant equilibrium.
Well take for instance, "TE012 square of norm of magnetic field.png" at this link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878 where the square of the magnetic field should be from currents moving in a circle at the base. Edit: Well, half from the light and the other half from the currents.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#CURRENTSCurrents, heating and Q factors...
...The Ampère-Maxwell Law then tells us that the current enclosed by the loop, running through the wall perpendicular to the loop, will be proportional to the magnetic field just inside the cavity.
...In the TE modes, the currents run around the axis.
-
...That is odd because I thought there were currents even for a superconductor. ...
Nothing odd about that, since superconductors are not perfect conductors ;):
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-superconductor-and-vs-perfect-conductor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_conductor
I never commingled the two in my post.
-
...Well take for instance, "TE012 square of norm of magnetic field.png" at this link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878 where the square of the magnetic field should be from currents moving in a circle at the base. Edit: Well, half from the light and the other half from the currents....
Not at all. The magnetic field being shown for TE012 is due to the continuity that must be satisfied at the interface boundary condition due to the magnetic field parallel to the surface. It is not at all due to the electric field! I do know because that came from my own exact solution :) , and I know what is being plotted and what BC are satisfied in my solution !
See Jackson, or any standard reference: http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e171f00/lectures/boundary.pdf
-
...
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#CURRENTSCurrents, heating and Q factors...
...The Ampère-Maxwell Law then tells us that the current enclosed by the loop, running through the wall perpendicular to the loop, will be proportional to the magnetic field just inside the cavity.
...In the TE modes, the currents run around the axis.
Greg Egan states clearly, in the section titled "Currents, heating and Q factors...", at the outset:
So far, we have treated the cavity walls as being made of a perfect conductor. In reality, of course, this will not be true, and the currents induced in the walls by the electromagnetic field will meet resistance
which is in agreement with my statement, and with Jackson:
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
From the same reference: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
TE modes
For the TE modes there is no electric field at the wall
which is exactly what I stated.
I carefully stated "perfect conductor" in my statements ;).
I carefully chose those words on purpose.
I never commingled perfect conductor with superconductor. i never commingled perfect conductor with imperfect conductor. I was careful to make separate statements about them.
-
...That's my story and I'm satisfied with it. I prefer to work with magnetic fields, which should cause a much larger power dissipation, due to higher current flow.
Glad that you ;) are satisfied with it.
My conclusion is that it is better to wait until your theory is developed to the point that it makes quantitative predictions, with a formula like Shawyer's, McCulloch's or Notsosureofit, that one can compare numerically with experimental results, otherwise the discussion becomes argumentative.
Looking forward to some numbers compared with experiment... :)
-
...
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#CURRENTSCurrents, heating and Q factors...
...The Ampère-Maxwell Law then tells us that the current enclosed by the loop, running through the wall perpendicular to the loop, will be proportional to the magnetic field just inside the cavity.
...In the TE modes, the currents run around the axis.
Greg Egan states clearly, in the section titled "Currents, heating and Q factors...", at the outset:
So far, we have treated the cavity walls as being made of a perfect conductor. In reality, of course, this will not be true, and the currents induced in the walls by the electromagnetic field will meet resistance
which is in agreement with my statement, and with Jackson:
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
From the same reference: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
TE modes
For the TE modes there is no electric field at the wall
which is exactly what I stated.
I carefully stated "perfect conductor" in my statements. I never commingled perfect conductor with superconductor. i never commingled perfect conductor with imperfect conductor. I was careful to make separate statements about them.
The rest of the quote states that the current flow even with restive loss, and in equilibrium with the antenna is similar to a lossless material. So there should be just as much current as in a perfect conductor right?
So far, we have treated the cavity walls as being made of a perfect conductor. In reality, of course, this will not be true, and the currents induced in the walls by the electromagnetic field will meet resistance, and dissipate energy as heat. If this rate of loss is not too great, and the energy in the cavity is constantly being replenished by a source of microwaves at the resonant frequency, then it’s reasonable to assume that the field geometry will closely resemble that of the lossless mode.
...
The resistance of a given area of the wall will be constant, so the power dissipated as heat per unit area will be proportional to the square of the current, and hence proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength at the wall.
I am sure there are differences between superconductors and perfect conductors but as far as resistance to current flow at low temperatures I am not seeing a significant difference.
Below quote from: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-superconductor-and-vs-perfect-conductor/
When the temperature of the material is decreased pass the critical temperature the resistance of the material abruptly drops to zero.
...
What is the difference between Superconductor and Perfect Conductor?
• Superconductivity is a phenomenon occurring in real life, while perfect conductivity is an assumption made to ease the calculations.
• Perfect Conductors can have any temperature, but superconductors only exist below the critical temperature of the material.
So very little resistance to maintaining an induced ac current in equilibrium right? Isn't a superconductor at low temperature w.r.t. resistance a conductor with out resistance, as is a perfect conductor with out resistance. I am not sure I am understanding what the important difference is beyond this.
I had difficulty finding the quote from Jackson at that particular link.
-
...Another thing I've been looking at is, that with a TM mode, the current flows along the length of the cavity, and resistance will go "UP" at the small end where the width of the conductor is narrower. With a TE mode, the current flows around the circumference of the cavity,...
?
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. The boundary condition is that any electrical component parallel to a perfect electrical conductor is zero.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/electric-field-boundary-conditions.php
(http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/notangential.gif)
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
This is a TE012 mode, and it would be about the same for TE013.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=820099;sess=47405)
The H2 field will cause currents to flow in the skin depth, that's what prevents the field from passing through the copper. If there were no current induced in the copper, the magnetic field would escape to the outside. A superconductor will prevent the magnetic field from entering because that current flows as a phase shift of the single quantum wave function that describes the motion of the charge, due to the Meissner effect.
My expectation would be, superconductor on one end of the cylinder, and a high resistivity material like carbon steel on the other end, and make the cylinder as short as possible and still support a TE012 or TE013 mode.
-
.I am not sure I am understanding what the important difference is beyond this.
I had difficulty finding the quote from Jackson at that particular link.
As stated in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_conductor) a perfect conductor is an idealized material.
This means that a perfect conductor is a material that does not exist in Nature.
Whether to use the BC for a perfect conductor to model a superconductor or an imperfect conductor is a matter of numerical approximation. Most closed-form solutions to electromagnetism problems employ the assumption of a perfect conductor.
If you don't use perfect conductor BC's many problems become unsolvable in closed form.
They can be solved numerically, but then nobody is sure about the validity of such numerical solutions, as to uniqueness ,convergence, etc.
-
[The H2 field will cause currents to flow in the skin depth, that's what prevents the field from passing through the copper. If there were no current induced in the copper, the magnetic field would escape to the outside....
I carefully separated my statements between BC for perfect conductor and imperfect conductor.
You are stating << If there were no current induced in the copper,>> which means that you either failed to read my statements or you are confusing one with another.
You are commingling the two, and moreover not addressing the numerical magnitude of the currents, since I stated that in an imperfect conductor like copper the currents in TE modes are very small, and you make no numerical statement whatsoever.
I was trying to help by seeking a mathematical solution to the boundary condition problem for your equations.
If you are not going to use perfect conductor BC's to solve your equations, please show me your mathematical solution using BC's for imperfect conductors, using your equations.
-
[The H2 field will cause currents to flow in the skin depth, that's what prevents the field from passing through the copper. If there were no current induced in the copper, the magnetic field would escape to the outside....
I carefully separated my statements between BC for perfect conductor and imperfect conductor.
You are stating << If there were no current induced in the copper,>> which means that you either failed to read my statements or you are commingling one with another.
You are commingling the two, and moreover not addressing the numerical magnitude of the currents, since I stated that in an imperfect conductor like copper the currents in TE modes are very small, and you make no numerical statement whatsoever.
But if very little current is induced in a restive conductor (bottom quote) then that would imply no current is induced in a perfect conductor, right? Is it that the current is zero so zero energy is dissipated through the walls, or is it the resistance is zero so zero energy is dissipated through the walls. Or is it the extremely small current as a relative term that is throwing me off. Or is resistance so great that current is reduced to extremely small but then I don't understand Greg Egan who is saying the below quote.
So far, we have treated the cavity walls as being made of a perfect conductor. In reality, of course, this will not be true, and the currents induced in the walls by the electromagnetic field will meet resistance, and dissipate energy as heat. If this rate of loss is not too great, and the energy in the cavity is constantly being replenished by a source of microwaves at the resonant frequency, then it’s reasonable to assume that the field geometry will closely resemble that of the lossless mode.
...
The resistance of a given area of the wall will be constant, so the power dissipated as heat per unit area will be proportional to the square of the current, and hence proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength at the wall.
...
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity.
...
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
-
[The H2 field will cause currents to flow in the skin depth, that's what prevents the field from passing through the copper. If there were no current induced in the copper, the magnetic field would escape to the outside....
I carefully separated my statements between BC for perfect conductor and imperfect conductor.
You are stating << If there were no current induced in the copper,>> which means that you either failed to read my statements or you are confusing one with another.
You are commingling the two, and moreover not addressing the numerical magnitude of the currents, since I stated that in an imperfect conductor like copper the currents in TE modes are very small, and you make no numerical statement whatsoever.
I was trying to help by looking for a mathematical solution to the boundary condition problem for your equations.
If you are not going to use perfect conductor BC's to solve your equations, please show me your mathematical solution using BC's for imperfect conductors, using your equations.
Sorry, that's because in my mind, it is trivial to say that once the cylinder has reached it's maximum capacity at the loaded Q value;
Pin*Q
Then
Pd = Pin
It is how that power dissipation is mapped to the cylinder that is represented by my equations, and the properties of the material. So if the losses are "small", it just means it has a higher Q!
It's Friday night, I'll do math another time. :)
-
...
But if very little current is induced in a restive conductor (bottom quote) then that would imply no current is induced in a perfect conductor, right? Is it that the current is zero so zero energy is dissipated through the walls, or is it the resistance is zero so zero energy is dissipated through the walls. Or is it the very little as a relative term that is throwing me off.
...
I was trying to help by seeking a mathematical closed-form solution to his theory. This is only possible in most cases assuming BC's for perfect conductors, and not for imperfect conductors.
Without a mathematical solution, the discussion becomes wordy, with shades of meaning, which I am too tired to pursue.
When Todd's theory makes numerical predictions that can be compared with experiments we can continue such a discussion.
-
?
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. The boundary condition is that any electrical component parallel to a perfect electrical conductor is zero.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/electric-field-boundary-conditions.php
(http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/notangential.gif)
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
No offense, but there is some misunderstanding here. From the antenna-theory website you reference above, the very next paragraph says;
"Figure 3 shows us our first result: Et=0 (always). That is, the tangential Electric Field will always be zero on a metal surface. This is because the free charge will swim around and cancel it out, simply by the attractive nature of charge. And that is cool."
You somehow interpret this to mean that "There are no currents..." and ignore the parallel H field. This website says; "charge will swim around and cancel it out", which means that currents are flowing. If the H field is oscillating at 2.4 GHz, then those currents are "swimming" at 2.4 GHz and the an imperfect conductor will get hot, and the perfect conductor will just conduct without any heat losses.
The reference you gave me, pages #6 and #7, also agree that a parallel H field will drive currents in the metal. https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/ZEUTHEN/Zeuthen-talks/170903/Schmueser-sc_cav.pdf (https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/ZEUTHEN/Zeuthen-talks/170903/Schmueser-sc_cav.pdf)
"• [parallel] magnetic field penetrates into wall with exponential attenuation, induces currents within skin depth"
If I wrap a transformer coil with a short circuit turn using a perfect conductor, the E field will be zero "0" and an enormous current will flow around that loop. The current will flow to oppose any change in the magnetic flux. That's what happens on the BC of a perfect conductor when a time varying H field is applied parallel to the conductor. A TE mode has an H field component parallel to the surface everywhere except right on the z-axis. Current flows around the circumference, and around the axis on the end plates.
In an imperfect conductor at 2.4GHz, the currents will be very small, because the resistance is very high. At lower frequency, the resistance will be lower and higher currents will flow. My equation for thrust is inversely proportional to frequency, so that's a good thing for scaling up the current and power.
I'm working on the Math. First I need to grasp what it is I'm calculating. Discussing it with words helps me to define the mathematics. I know that in a resonant circuit the power oscillates at "0" Power Factor, and therefore can't do any "work". So any work being done must occur due to "real" power being dissipated, at Power Factor = 1. The only place this is happening is where power is lost to dissipation, attenuation and real forces doing work. I appreciate your coaching and coaxing. :)
-
Items a credible EM Drive theory needs to account for:
1 - Shape. The EM drive experiments that have produced 'thrust' were all frustums. Cylinders and other symmetrical shapes result in zero thrust. (Effectively confirmed by Zeller and Craft. Also, Shell abandoned an early design because the half-cone angle was too shallow.)
2 - Dielectrics. The EM drive designs that produced thrust all incorporated some form of dielectric insert. Those without dielectric inserts (almost) always resulted in zero thrust. This also ties in directly with false positive results with thermal heating (?) from a power cable. (Contrast EW with Yang. A *possible* exception here may be Rfmwguy's project).
3 - Evanescent Waves. There has been extensive commentary from the start (albeit with a long hiatus) that this device should produce substantial amounts of Evanescent Waves, regardless of whatever else it does. These waves, and their effect need to be accounted for. (many or most electrical engineers who have commented in these threads).
4 - Exponential Forces in Computer Models. None of these models that I am aware of simulate a period of more than 1/1000 of a second. Yet they do show forces going exponential within the cavity in a single direction. However, these forces are not in violation of thermodynamics and do not, in and of themselves, produce thrust, though they may affect whatever is causing thrust. These models also seem to accurately predict various mode shapes within the cavity. (witness the efforts of Aero and Monomorphic).
5 - Surges and Nulls. There have been repeated, yet isolated reports by various EM Drive experimenters of very high thrust. So far as I know, these 'surges' have not been consistently duplicated. Likewise, there are multiple EM drive experiments where the device produced no thrust, despite meeting other requirements. (Shell, Rfmwguy, Traveler, possibly Yang and EW).
Omissions? Errors? Additions?
-
...You somehow interpret this to mean that "There are no currents..." and ignore the parallel H field. ...
That statement misrepresents what I wrote. I wrote that there are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor (Q=infinite) in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. I also wrote that for an imperfect conductor like copper (Q~50,000) , the magnitude of such currents is small.
A perfect electric conductor is a mathematical idealization to enable a simple boundary condition so that one can analytically solve the boundary value problem. A perfect electric conductor does not exist in Nature. All materials, including superconductors are imperfect in this sense. Using the perfect electric conductor boundary condition is a mathematical idealization that has served us well to solve myriads of electromagnetic problems. It can be shown that the magnitude of the currents that take place in an imperfect conductor like copper are so small that they do not appreciably affect the solution of the boundary value problem for the fields in the cavity.
Please read carefully my post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1542032#msg1542032
Further to this issue about Boundary Conditions, Jackson has an excellent discussion in his masterpiece Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, pages 352 to 356 (ISBN-10: 047130932X; ISBN-13: 978-0471309321). Pay special attention to the graph on page 355, Fig. 8.2 "Fields near the surface of a good, but not perfect conductor". For a good but not perfect conductor, for example copper as used in the EM Drive, and as modeled in Meep with the Drude equation model, a very tiny magnitude electric field parallel to the surface will be present, as well as a very tiny magnetic field perpendicular to the surface. The electric field parallel to the surface is inversely proportional to the square root of the conductivity:
(https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/img657.png)
This solution exhibits the expected rapid exponential decay (skin depth), and Pi/4 phase difference. For a good conductor, the fields inside the metal conductor are parallel to the surface and propagate normal to it, with magnitudes that depend only on the tangential magnetic field parallel to the surface, that exists just outside the surface of the metal conductor.
As shown in the graphs in Jackson's book, and as one can readily calculate these fields are practically zero, insignificant for copper, due to its very high conductivity. Therefore it is not a surprise that Meep does not show a significant difference in the fields calculated using the perfect conductor model vs. the Drude model. The main influence of the finite conductivity Drude model is to allow the calculation of a finite Q (instead of an infinite Q). But again, the boundary condition is such that the electric field parallel to the surface and the magnetic field perpendicular to the surface must be practically zero at the surface, due to the very high conductivity of copper. This is particularly so for the experiments of EM Drive where experimenters seek a high Q, which is tantamount to practically zero fields for these variables. It is completely inconsistent for EM Drive experimenters to advocate a high Q (Shawyer even claiming to research superconducting EM Drives) and not realize that these boundary conditions are such that these fields must be practically zero at the surface of the good conductor.
NOTE: for those not having ready access to Jackson's monograph, the following discussion by a professor at Duke University is also good: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node59.html
Where, to the opposite of what you state, I do not ignore the effect of the parallel H field. I am aware of it. I am just saying that the electric field that takes place as a consequence of the parallel H field is small enough that it does not appreciably affect the solution of the boundary value problem.
Due to the high conductivity of copper, the quality of resonance factor, Q is high for these cavities, ranging from thousands to almost a hundred thousand. This means that the heat dissipation taking place in the skin depth is small. TE Modes like TE012 and TE013 have the highest Q, which means that these currents on the walls are smallest for TE modes like TE012 and TE013.
If you disagree, please provide a numerical calculation of the numerical magnitude of these currents. If your point is that the currents are not small (which is the opposite of what I state, since I stated that they are small), please show us numerically how large are these currents, particularly for TE modes.
If you do agree that , as you state:
In an imperfect conductor at 2.4GHz, the currents will be very small,
and if you agree that copper at 2.4GHz is an imperfect conductor in the above sense, then ... we agree that these currents in TE modes at 2.4 GHz are small ;) as I originally stated, so there is no disagreement to be had...
-
Have a little question about miniaturization. Idea is to use small thin copper foil frustum with very small mass.
Here is everything in picture.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/xcq1bl.jpg)
Sorry if its... :-[
-
Something seems wrong with the last equation ???
I think it may be correct. That is if the definition I give at the end is correct. See below:
(http://sharemath.com/TEU5AXzY.png)
-
Items a credible EM Drive theory needs to account for:
1 - Shape. The EM drive experiments that have produced 'thrust' were all frustums. Cylinders and other symmetrical shapes result in zero thrust. (Effectively confirmed by Zeller and Craft. Also, Shell abandoned an early design because the half-cone angle was too shallow.)
2 - Dielectrics. The EM drive designs that produced thrust all incorporated some form of dielectric insert. Those without dielectric inserts (almost) always resulted in zero thrust. This also ties in directly with false positive results with thermal heating (?) from a power cable. (Contrast EW with Yang. A *possible* exception here may be Rfmwguy's project).
3 - Evanescent Waves. There has been extensive commentary from the start (albeit with a long hiatus) that this device should produce substantial amounts of Evanescent Waves, regardless of whatever else it does. These waves, and their effect need to be accounted for. (many or most electrical engineers who have commented in these threads).
4 - Exponential Forces in Computer Models. None of these models that I am aware of simulate a period of more than 1/1000 of a second. Yet they do show forces going exponential within the cavity in a single direction. However, these forces are not in violation of thermodynamics and do not, in and of themselves, produce thrust, though they may affect whatever is causing thrust. These models also seem to accurately predict various mode shapes within the cavity. (witness the efforts of Aero and Monomorphic).
5 - Surges and Nulls. There have been repeated, yet isolated reports by various EM Drive experimenters of very high thrust. So far as I know, these 'surges' have not been consistently duplicated. Likewise, there are multiple EM drive experiments where the device produced no thrust, despite meeting other requirements. (Shell, Rfmwguy, Traveler, possibly Yang and EW).
Omissions? Errors? Additions?
I would say that myself and shawyer are the outliers that had force production without a dielectric. Since I did not experiment with an insert, I cannot reach a conclusion that inserts enhance or retards force production.
If I take my hands-on RF experience into account, I would expect a lower Q with a dielectric insert. However, this is a new experimental device/configuration that likely does not behave in a predictable way that science fiction authors or classically-trained scientists expect.
If they would make the effort to design, build and test one to confirm "their" positions, it would go a long way to resolving a lot of arguments. Arguments without data are simply arguments.
-
Something seems wrong with the last equation ???
I think it may be correct. That is if the definition I give at the end is correct. See below:
(http://sharemath.com/TEU5AXzY.png)
You are right, early this morning I didn't see or realized that there is also no sub"r" in the left hand equation inside the square root. :-[
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Edit 2: Updated 1:04 pm: Added a few more data points, corrected some bad input data, included cone half-angle in length calculation and updated equations to distinguish between "L" for length and "L1" for inductance.
Edit 3: Updated 2:25 pm: Added rfmwguy's data to the table.
-
I thought I would point out this document for WarpTech as he has been discussing thermal temperature. This document discusses the vacuum as having a temperature and carrying momentum. I am not sure it will be all that useful yet but thought of it as interesting. http://cds.cern.ch/record/368557
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
-
I thought I would point out this document for WarpTech as he has been discussing thermal temperature. This document discusses the vacuum as having a temperature and carrying momentum. I am not sure it will be all that useful yet but thought of it as interesting. http://cds.cern.ch/record/368557
Thanks. At first glance, this is pretty much identical to what is in Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum.
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1560166#msg1560166) comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know.
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1560166#msg1560166) comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know.
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange.
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
-
...
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
The Cannae test you plotted, was for a superconducting test claimed by Cannae.
No other test you plotted was for a superconducting cavity, so that test should be marked with a different marker/color to point out the difference between copper cavities and the superconducting one (I know that you denoted this by SC).
It would be helpful if you would plot the data for the copper Cannae tests for comparison (if you don't know where to get the data, please send me an email), so that you can properly note what difference the Cannae geometry makes, as compared to superconducting vs. copper.
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1560166#msg1560166) comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know.
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange.
Thanks Todd. Glad to know it's within a data cluster. Loaded Q and exact power are approximate, regardless the data appears to be in line with others. I recorded it without a comparison to anyone else like you have. Hope to have some more in a few months.
-
...
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
Thank you for updating with the Cannae Copper.
All the tests that are showing in clusters with significant Thrust/Power were conducted in air. All those results may all be experimental artifacts due to thermal convection, and if so of no use for Space Propulsion.
So how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison.
-
So how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison.
Didn't the Cannae team test their device in a vacuum?
-
So how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison.
Didn't the Cannae team test their device in a vacuum?
The Cannae test data plotted by Todd is for tests that were not done in a vacuum.
The copper Cannae data plotted are the tests conducted at NASA Eagleworks, which were tested at ambient pressure, and reported in the AIAA Conference paper 2014. The superconducting Cannae test data is from the 2011 test performed at ambient pressure and later reported by Fetta in an AIAA conference.
There is no data released by Cannae for any tests performed in a partial vacuum, that I know of. If anybody has such data, please post it at NSF. Thanks.
-
...
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange.
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
All the tests that are showing in clusters with significant Thrust/Power were conducted in air., at ambient pressure All those test results in air may all be experimental artifacts due to thermal convection, and if so of no use for Space Propulsion.
The present plot serves to dramatize the huge difference between the thrust/power of the EM Drive tests conducted in air vs. the ones (by Tajmar and NASA) conducted in partial vacuum, that are puny in comparison.
When I plot your data as a simple Linear/Linear plot, I get this (click on this image to see it well),
which shows:
Since Log[R2/R1] is a linear function of Thrust/Power, times other factors (2L/Cos[theta]), it is not surprising that it shows a linear relationship with Thrust/Power:
-Log[R2/R1]= (Thrust/Power)* (2 omega * L/Cos[theta])
when the factor (2 omega * L/Cos[theta]) does not change much between different experiments
Notes:
1) The only outlier from the regression line is the Cannae Superconducting
2) I did not plot the Cannae copper cavity data because as of this time WarpTech had not included the copper Cannae data on the spreadsheet he posted (he only included the copper Cannae in the plot, he did not update the spreadsheet link)
3) For consistency with WarpTech I plotted "Yang 3" data as done by WarpTech, but this is statistically questionable, as he plotted it +/-Thrust relative error data as being +Thrust, while the objective statistical plotting of "Yang 3" would be a zero.
-
Could you also plot the data in Log-Log plot so that the only tests performed in a partial vacuum (by NASA-March-White and by TU Dresden-Tajmar) can be seen as a positive quantity instead of zero?
As presently plotted in WarpTech's plot, the EM Drive appears as an experimental artifact (since the tests performed in partial vacuum appear as a "zero" and the tests that appear significant are the ones performed in air).
It would also be interesting to see this data plotted in Log-Log (instead of semi-Log) to see the data as a line, as most data appears linear when plotted in Log-Log, and this is useful to calculate its slope. The present data, as plotted in semi-Log, shows a nonlinear relationship.
Data displayed in Log-Log plot
Excellent R2 = 0.99 Only for Truncated Cones, (without Cannae geometry)
Notes:
1) The only outliers from the regression line are the Cannae Superconducting and Cannae copper that have their own individual regression line. This shows the difference between the Cannae geometry and the truncated cone geometry
2) For consistency with WarpTech I plotted "Yang 3" data as done by WarpTech, but this is statistically questionable, as he plotted it +/-Thrust relative error data as being +Thrust, while the objective statistical plotting of "Yang 3" would be a zero.
(click on image to see it well)
-
Interesting rumour just arrived.
Seems the Chinese have tested a EmDrive on station but have no idea why it works. Maybe they should talk to Roger or Gilo Industries?
Sure hope the X-37B is testing a better EmDrive on station.
-
Interesting rumour just arrived.
Seems the Chinese have tested a EmDrive on station but have no idea why it works. Maybe they should talk to Roger or Gilo Industries?
Sure hope the X-37B is testing a better EmDrive on station.
What would be the advantage(s) and therefore the need of testing an EM Drive inside a Space Station or inside the X-37B as compared to just testing it in Space as proposed by Cannae ?
http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
(http://cannae.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/3U_Cannae_Cubesat_Orbit_WEB.png)
-
What would be the advantage(s) and therefore the need of testing an EM Drive inside a Space Station or inside the X-37B as compared to just testing it in Space as proposed by Cannae ?
The obvious advantage is having direct access to the test article. An astronaut can make physical adjustments, reorient/reset the experiment.
Second advantage is secrecy. Anybody can track a satellite.
-
What would be the advantage(s) and therefore the need of testing an EM Drive inside a Space Station or inside the X-37B as compared to just testing it in Space as proposed by Cannae ?
The obvious advantage is having direct access to the test article. An astronaut can make physical adjustments, reorient/reset the experiment.
Second advantage is secrecy. Anybody can track a satellite.
There is no astronaut inside the X-37B, so the first "advantage" is only for the Space Station, and only while there are astronauts inside the Space Station, and only if such adjustments are necessary and cannot be made by remote or automatic control.
Concerning the second point (avoiding enemies or others tracking a satellite), there are ways to get around that.
-
Concerning the second point <<Anybody can track a satellite>>, there are ways to get around that (USAirForce)
Wouldn't a small emdrive test satellite need to broadcast a signal to be tracked?
-
Concerning the second point <<Anybody can track a satellite>>, there are ways to get around that (USAirForce)
Wouldn't a small emdrive test satellite need to broadcast a signal to be tracked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_pulsar-based_navigation
-
...
Would suggest what Gilo Industries may release should eliminate doubt.
-
Concerning the second point <<Anybody can track a satellite>>, there are ways to get around that (USAirForce)
Wouldn't a small emdrive test satellite need to broadcast a signal to be tracked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_pulsar-based_navigation
I could see that being used in a mature emdrive spy satellite, but not on an experimental satellite the purpose of which is to validate the emdrive technology. The small Cannae satellite will need to broadcast a signal, at least intermittently, if they ever hope to track its location to prove it works. Or they could use radar to track it.
-
Please notice that Todd updated his spreadsheet with the copper Cannae data and I updated the Log Log plot in:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602555#msg1602555
This is very interesting, because it shows that the Cannae cavity has its own regression line slope, which is parallel and different from the truncated cone geometry of Shawyer/NASA/Yang/Tajmar and others.
So Todd's theory shows a fundamental difference between the Cannae design and the truncated cone design of Shawyer, which is due to the Cannae geometry and not due to whether it is superconducting.
There are two Log-Log lines: one for the truncated cone geometry and another one for the Cannae pillbox/flying-saucer geometry.
I also now calculated the Regression Line only taking into account the Truncated Cone geometry pioneered by Shawyer. The data gives an excellent R2=0.99
-
Please notice that Todd updated his spreadsheet with the copper Cannae data and I updated the Log Log plot in:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602555#msg1602555
This is very interesting, because it shows that the Cannae cavity has its own regression line slope, which is parallel and different from the truncated cone geometry of Shawyer/NASA/Yang/Tajmar and others.
So Todd's theory shows a fundamental difference between the Cannae design and the truncated cone design of Shawyer, which is due to the Cannae geometry and not due to whether it is superconducting.
There are two Log-Log lines: one for the truncated cone geometry and another one for the Cannae pillbox/flying-saucer geometry.
I also now calculated the Regression Line only taking into account the Truncated Cone geometry pioneered by Shawyer. The data gives an excellent R2=0.99
Thank you for doing the log-log plot & regression. That looks great!
I'm not 100% certain that air "inside" the frustum doesn't help the thrust by design. After all, in @Notsosureofit's model and in my model, there is an accelerated reference frame inside the frustum. The force acting on the frustum mass, is equal and opposite the force acting on the internal EM field equivalent mass. Having air inside, if it accelerates along with the EM field, adds a significant amount of mass to the equation, and therefore will add a significant amount of force to the EM drive. A compressed gas inside the frustum may be a necessary part of the design, to enhance the thrust, provided the kinetic energy of the gas' mass can be dissipated at the big end, before returning to the small end, or at least over many cycles. i.e., those data points may not be 100% anomalous data. There may be a real affect enhancement due to gas with high kinetic energy, inside the frustum.
-
Have I completely misunderstood something? As the equations in the spreadsheet are written, log(R2/R1) is a directly proportional to thurst/power. So the amazingly good fit seems to me to be only a reflection of the fact that all devices are of similar size and operate at similar frequencies.
edit. thrust/power instead of thrust/weight as I'd originally written
-
Have I completely misunderstood something? As the equations in the spreadsheet are written, log(R2/R1) is a directly proportional to thurst/power. So the amazingly good fit seems to me to be only a reflection of the fact that all devices are of similar size and operate at similar frequencies.
edit. thrust/power instead of thrust/weight as I'd originally written
I had already pointed that out, explicitly, and discussed that here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602526#msg1602526
and I already pointed out that the different Cannae geometry belongs in its own separate line here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602584#msg1602584
But what is the point of doing regression then?
Why not just divide thrust/power out?
-
What is this particular 'statistical analysis' trying to achieve? It certainly isn't useful in predicting thrust/power, because the explanatory variable itself includes thrust/power. However, for a casual observer who doesn't know what R2/R1 means the plots definitely give that impression.
-
What is this particular 'statistical analysis' trying to achieve? It certainly isn't useful in predicting thrust/power, because the explanatory variable itself includes thrust/power. However, for a casual observer who doesn't know what R2/R1 means the plots definitely give that impression.
I first made that very same point, and I made it explicitly, rather than using words.
Todd chose those variables. For me, formulas, plots and analysis speak for themselves more clearly than using words.
You are welcome to use words, or nothing (no discussion of the variables and the formula, no plots and no statistical analysis), if you prefer, to describe this.
I already pointed out a useful thing that came from the analysis (All of Yang results fall into line with the other other truncated cone results ). Here is another one: obviously the EM Drive data is not random or faked data, because it plots the way it is supposed to behave, when regressed. The different L, Cos[theta] and omega for Cannae fall on their own line, and as an outlier frm the truncated cone geometry. That does not mean that the EM Drive can necessarily be used for Space Propulsion, it just shows that the EM Drive data is not randomly generated.
The different geometries, were not always provided by the experimenters. As I recall only Paul March (NASA) and Tajmar (TU Dresden) have provided their actual geometry. The other geometries had to be painstakingly ascertained by the NSF team from a number of arguments. Yang's geometry was very controversial, and very difficult to ascertain. It is comforting to see that the regression confirms that the geometry calculated by the NSF team gives reasonable results.
-
Please notice that Todd updated his spreadsheet with the copper Cannae data and I updated the Log Log plot in:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602555#msg1602555 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602555#msg1602555)
This is very interesting, because it shows that the Cannae cavity has its own regression line slope, which is parallel and different from the truncated cone geometry of Shawyer/NASA/Yang/Tajmar and others.
So Todd's theory shows a fundamental difference between the Cannae design and the truncated cone design of Shawyer, which is due to the Cannae geometry and not due to whether it is superconducting.
There are two Log-Log lines: one for the truncated cone geometry and another one for the Cannae pillbox/flying-saucer geometry.
I also now calculated the Regression Line only taking into account the Truncated Cone geometry pioneered by Shawyer. The data gives an excellent R2=0.99
Thank you for doing the log-log plot & regression. That looks great!
I'm not 100% certain that air "inside" the frustum doesn't help the thrust by design. After all, in @Notsosureofit's model and in my model, there is an accelerated reference frame inside the frustum. The force acting on the frustum mass, is equal and opposite the force acting on the internal EM field equivalent mass. Having air inside, if it accelerates along with the EM field, adds a significant amount of mass to the equation, and therefore will add a significant amount of force to the EM drive. A compressed gas inside the frustum may be a necessary part of the design, to enhance the thrust, provided the kinetic energy of the gas' mass can be dissipated at the big end, before returning to the small end, or at least over many cycles. i.e., those data points may not be 100% anomalous data. There may be a real affect enhancement due to gas with high kinetic energy, inside the frustum.
First of all these plots are breathtaking!! This is truly a case of the data speaking for itself. Even Yang 3! (Now why Yang 3 should show up there, so nicely correlated, is quite another story... Mutter, mutter...)
However, if having a gas present is important to improve the mass it might be tricky to choose the right one. For instance, one could consider a heavy gas like Sulphur Hexafluoride but how would it affect Q and other EM characteristics? Or, as Rodal pointed out some time ago, one could aim for a maser effect using a gas like ammonia as they did in the early masers.
There are a lot of factors to use to tune this phenomena. Also, the latest Sawyer "bell" fustrum appears to create very intense conditions so that is another consideration as well!
-
What is this particular 'statistical analysis' trying to achieve? It certainly isn't useful in predicting thrust/power, because the explanatory variable itself includes thrust/power. However, for a casual observer who doesn't know what R2/R1 means the plots definitely give that impression.
I first made that very same point, and I made it explicitly, rather than using words.
Todd chose those variables. For me, formulas, plots and analysis speak for themselves more clearly than using words.
You are welcome to use words, or nothing (no discussion of the variables and the formula, no plots and no statistical analysis), if you prefer.
I already pointed out a useful thing that came from the analysis (Yang 3).
Here is another one: obviously the EM Drive data is not random or faked data, because it plots the way it is supposed to behave, when regressed. The different L, Cos[theta] and omega for Cannae fall on their own line, and as an outlier form the truncated cone geometry. That does not mean that the EM Drive can necessarily be used for Space Propulsion, it just shows that the data is not random.
How could Yang 3 not be on the same line? It's the same geometry and frequency as the other two Yang's tests. And I don't get your point about not faked/random data: it shows that device dimensions and frequency used are not random, but nothing at all about thrust/power.
-
What is this particular 'statistical analysis' trying to achieve? It certainly isn't useful in predicting thrust/power, because the explanatory variable itself includes thrust/power. However, for a casual observer who doesn't know what R2/R1 means the plots definitely give that impression.
I first made that very same point, and I made it explicitly, rather than using words.
Todd chose those variables. For me, formulas, plots and analysis speak for themselves more clearly than using words.
You are welcome to use words, or nothing (no discussion of the variables and the formula, no plots and no statistical analysis), if you prefer.
I already pointed out a useful thing that came from the analysis (Yang 3).
Here is another one: obviously the EM Drive data is not random or faked data, because it plots the way it is supposed to behave, when regressed. The different L, Cos[theta] and omega for Cannae fall on their own line, and as an outlier form the truncated cone geometry. That does not mean that the EM Drive can necessarily be used for Space Propulsion, it just shows that the data is not random.
How could Yang 3 not be on the same line? It's the same geometry and frequency as the other two Yang's tests. And I don't get your point about not faked/random data: it shows that device dimensions and frequency used are not random, but nothing at all about thrust/power.
Yes, you are correct that all of the Yang results necessarily should fall into their own same line if they have the same length L, cosine of cone angle Cos[theta], and natural frequency.
This follows from what I pointed out here:
Since Log[R2/R1] is a linear function of Thrust/Power, times other factors (2L/Cos[theta]), it is not surprising that it shows a linear relationship with Thrust/Power:
-Log[R2/R1]= (Thrust/Power)* (2 omega * L/Cos[theta])
when the factor (2 omega * L/Cos[theta]) does not change much between different experiments
However, they will not necessarily fall into the same line as other results having different L, Cos[theta] and frequency. For example, the Cannae (both copper and superconducting) results fall into a different line. This makes sense. It appears as a trivial result if all the geometries would be well known and provided by the researchers, but unfortunately that was not the case.
The only experimenters that fully provided their geometry were NASA and TU Dresden (Tajmar). Tajmar's initially described geometry was in error, as pointed out by a NSF member, and later corrected by Tajmar as a result of the NSF member's communication.
The geometries (other than NASA's) had to be painstakingly ascertained by the NSF team from a number of arguments. Yang did not provide the complete geometry. Instead of making a statement about Yang 3, I should have made a statement about all the Yang results as a group: Yang 1, Yang 2 and Yang 3. Yang's geometry, particularly the Length (L) and the cone angle (theta), were very controversial, and very difficult to ascertain and to reach a consensus.
To refresh memories, a geometry for Yang was initially proposed that had a very different Length L and cosine angle. SeeShell even made a prototype for this initial geometry, and we had lots of discussion with SeeShells, Flyby and others concerning this controversy around Yang's geometry.
It is comforting to see that the regression confirms that the geometry calculated by the NSF team, for all the truncated cones, including Yang's results, gives reasonable results, that fall into approximately the same line as the other truncated cone geometries. And that the fundamentally different geometry for the Cannae drives falls into a different line.
... it shows that device dimensions and frequency used are not random, but nothing at all about thrust/power.
Yes, your statement is correct and is in agreement with my above remark << Since Log[R2/R1] is a linear function of Thrust/Power, times other factors (2L/Cos[theta]), it is not surprising that it shows a linear relationship with Thrust/Power>> and that
That does not mean that the EM Drive can necessarily be used for Space Propulsion, it just shows that the data is not random.
-
What does the Log-Log R1 R2 axis measure?
-
Have a little question about miniaturization. Idea is to use small thin copper foil frustum with very small mass.
Here is everything in picture.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/xcq1bl.jpg)
Sorry if its... :-[
The problem with this approach is that the small geometry necessitates the use of a high frequency like your proposed 24GHz. As a practical matter, microwave tech at these frequencies is lossy and the fustrum will also have a low Q. The issue is you may get thrust but it is so low (low Q, low energy due to losses) that it gets lost in the noise. Small vacuum chambers have, in my opinion, been the bane EM drive research. Also, having a gas present may be important to higher thrust.
-
What does the Log-Log R1 R2 axis measure?
As chosen by Todd:
-Log[R2/R1]= (Thrust/Power)* (2 omega * L/Cos[theta])
I leave it up to Todd to explain/defend as a variable, but I think he was trying to find empirically what is the (1/Q)dQ/dr=d[ln Q]/dr functional relationship (due to geometry) in his equation (1/Q)dQ/dr
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1381459;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1381412;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1379527;image)
This relationship of Thrust/Power vs Ln[R2/R1] implies, besides geometry, the quality of resonance factor Q, which varies by several orders of magnitude between Tajmar's EM Drive and Shawyer's and Yang's, and does not appear as an explicit variable in the regression plot.
Q is a function of geometry, material, and mode shapes.
-
What is this particular 'statistical analysis' trying to achieve? It certainly isn't useful in predicting thrust/power, because the explanatory variable itself includes thrust/power. However, for a casual observer who doesn't know what R2/R1 means the plots definitely give that impression.
I first made that very same point, and I made it explicitly, rather than using words.
Todd chose those variables. For me, formulas, plots and analysis speak for themselves more clearly than using words.
You are welcome to use words, or nothing (no discussion of the variables and the formula, no plots and no statistical analysis), if you prefer.
I already pointed out a useful thing that came from the analysis (Yang 3).
Here is another one: obviously the EM Drive data is not random or faked data, because it plots the way it is supposed to behave, when regressed. The different L, Cos[theta] and omega for Cannae fall on their own line, and as an outlier form the truncated cone geometry. That does not mean that the EM Drive can necessarily be used for Space Propulsion, it just shows that the data is not random.
How could Yang 3 not be on the same line? It's the same geometry and frequency as the other two Yang's tests. And I don't get your point about not faked/random data: it shows that device dimensions and frequency used are not random, but nothing at all about thrust/power.
My original objective was to see how much asymmetry is required to get this Thrust to Power ratio, since perfect symmetry would be Log(1) = 0, and there would be no thrust. So what it was supposed to represent is how much asymmetry is required to get this thrust to power ratio. However, plotting it as a Log vs Log is just revealing the similar geometrical factors.
There are too many unknowns to say any of this is good data. Thrust to Power ratio is based on raw input power, not the amount of power actually coupled into the cavity. So that number in itself is not to be trusted.
The Thrust to Power ratio calculated is the inverse of the Thrust velocity. In my model, the inverse of the Thrust velocity is -dtau/dr, where r is the distance from the apex of the cone and tau is the decay time of the EM wave as a function of r.
-
It seems that what people criticizing the plotting may be missing is that this relationship of Thrust/Power vs Ln[R2/R1] implies, besides geometry, the quality of resonance factor Q, which varies by several orders of magnitude between Tajmar's EM Drive and Shawyer's and Yang's, and does not appear as an explicit variable in the regression plot.
A couple of other interesting correlations seem to be happening with this chart. All the vacuum experiments are at the bottom. Also the TMxxx experiments (especially TM212) are at the bottom. The TE012 and TE013 experiments are at the top.
So is this simply about geometry controlling modes or is there something else?
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
I would definitely not recommend that they go the direction of using a microwave magnetron for their RF source. The high RF output and high voltage power supply is where the danger is. But if they want to pick up a 50-100W amp, I say go for it. Just be weary of regulations on broadcasting RF. Resonant cavity experiments are exempt since they do not intend to radiate, but there can be leaks!
Speaking from personal experience, the magnetron is a terrible choice for many other reasons besides the danger: frequency drift, runaway thermal heating, difficult to make battery powered, vortex shedding from the heatsink, thermal heating/expansion of the leads, difficulty in modeling the antenna cap, it's heavy... the list goes on and every single problem has to be accounted for.
-
It seems that what people criticizing the plotting may be missing is that this relationship of Thrust/Power vs Ln[R2/R1] implies, besides geometry, the quality of resonance factor Q, which varies by several orders of magnitude between Tajmar's EM Drive and Shawyer's and Yang's, and does not appear as an explicit variable in the regression plot.
A couple of other interesting correlations seem to be happening with this chart. All the vacuum experiments are at the bottom. Also the TMxxx experiments (especially TM212) are at the bottom. The TE012 and TE013 experiments are at the top.
So is this simply about geometry controlling modes or is there something else?
I did something similar last year using the data that was available on wiki. It showed that even for the couple watts that was input for the EagleWorks test the thrust ration was higher for the TE012. I built taking these facts into account a TE012 frustum and then modified it.
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Shell
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
I would definitely not recommend that they go the direction of using a microwave magnetron for their RF source. The high RF output and high voltage power supply is where the danger is. But if they want to pick up a 50-100W amp, I say go for it. Just be weary of regulations on broadcasting RF. Resonant cavity experiments are exempt since they do not intend to radiate, but there can be leaks!
Speaking from personal experience, the magnetron is a terrible choice for many other reasons besides the danger: frequency drift, runaway thermal heating, difficult to make battery powered, vortex shedding from the heatsink, thermal heating/expansion of the leads, difficulty in modeling the antenna cap, it's heavy... the list goes on and every single problem has to be accounted for.
It is great to see a consensus being formed advising people not to use << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>.
Eugene Samsonov (NSF user "RFPlumber") was the first "citizen scientist" to conduct EM Drive experiments without a magnetron and using a battery in a self-integrated test, using no power cables whatsoever.
The only researcher (aside from Prof. Juan Yang) to report EM Drive experiments without power cables, to this date.
http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0153
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
We look forward to others following the trailblazing of Samsonov by conducting further tests without the awful magnetron, which you are right << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>,and instead using a battery operated test without power cables.
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
I would definitely not recommend that they go the direction of using a microwave magnetron for their RF source. The high RF output and high voltage power supply is where the danger is. But if they want to pick up a 50-100W amp, I say go for it. And speaking from personal experience, the magnetron is a terrible choice for many other reasons besides the danger: frequency drift, runaway thermal heating, difficult to make battery powered, vortex shedding from the heatsink, thermal heating/expansion of the leads, difficulty in modeling the antenna cap, it's heavy... the list goes on and every single problem has to be accounted for.
You're correct it's easier to just slap a solid state driver.
The list of things you must do to make the magnetron tube behave in a safe and well determined envelope is not easy. Although I'm old enough that I teethed on vacuum tubes and the magnetron is just a high power vacuum tube. I designed for that. I ended up with a highly stable, frequency locked, narrow band magnetron, locking is done in a resonate waveguide in the electronics box and taking that output to the coax. That has a 100% duty cycle.
(http://i.imgur.com/akXGFGn.jpg)
Isolating the entire 5Kv variable power supply, magnetron, thermal cooling it all is not an easy task and then providing the RF to the frustum is another issue. Although it provides a great testing bed that's virtually bullet proof.
So saying a magnetron can't be done is not quite true and saying the output can't be tamed and thermals controlled is not correct. It's just a lot of work to be able to use the >1Kw output. Plus, if you don't know what your doing, even a solid state, 50 watts of microwave can damage and hurt you.
I've been building electronics for 50 years and knowing what I was dealing with and what it could do to made me extremely cautious.
Playing it safe in the Rockies,
Shell
Added: Verbage garbage correction
-
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive. And with the end-plates attached in only four places each, basically he created a frustum shaped antenna, not a true cavity. An IR video would likely have shown the RF escaping through the slits and no resonance pattern.
-
...I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive....
Let's also consider:
1) Samsonov had significant previous professional expertise in electromagnetically resonant Radio Frequency Cavities and waveguides. He wrote that he assessed resonance based on his scalar network analyzer:
Samsonov wrote:
The author then built the actual cavity from a sheet of 0.5 mm copper using a pair of FR4 plates for side walls and verified its resonance modes with a scalar network analyzer (Figure 4(c)).
(Figure 4c from Samsonov, showing resonance, with S11 plot, shown below in attachment)
2) Samsonov modeled his experiments, ahead of time, using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis
3) Samsonov determined that his experiment was going to resonate in TE012 mode shape. All TE0np mode shapes are notorious for:
a) resulting in higher Q than TM mode shapes, hence the bandwidth of resonance is narrower than for TM mode shapes. To be at resonance and stay at resonance is more difficult for TE0np modes, as also experienced by NASA for TE012, which decided to continue with TM212 because it was too difficult to excite TE012.
b) as documented in several textbooks (i.e. Collin) it is more difficult to excite a TE mode shape than to excite a TM mode shape
4) It is much more difficult to verify a TE mode shape than a TM mode shape using an infrared thermal camera because the TM mode shapes have associated currents due to the parallel transverse magnetic field in the azimuthal direction and due to the normal electric field in the axial direction, while the TE modes do not produce significant electric fields on the metal, because TE modes do not have an electric field component normal to the metal. There is only the magnetic field perpendicular to the azimuthal and longitudinal directions that is parallel to the (big and small) ends that can produce a current on the wall. Since the TE mode shapes result in higher Q, there is less dissipation at the walls and hence the TE0np mode shapes are more difficult to assess with an infrared thermal camera.
-
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive. And with the end-plates attached in only four places each, basically he created a frustum shaped antenna, not a true cavity. An IR video would likely have shown the RF escaping through the slits and no resonance pattern.
I saw the gaps between the FR4 and cone as well and thought the same as you that this would lead to killing the Q and any hope of measured thrust.
This drive is easy to make not work, but incredibly tough to make work. So many details have to be exactly right.
Shell
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
Thanks, I'll take your advice. I would like to play around with magnetic fields and forces on wires though involving ~1-3 Amps DC and maybe around 1000 turn coils. Is there a way I could accidentally harm myself?
-
Interesting rumour just arrived.
Seems the Chinese have tested a EmDrive on station but have no idea why it works. Maybe they should talk to Roger or Gilo Industries?
Sure hope the X-37B is testing a better EmDrive on station.
So you're saying it worked in space? Any numbers?
-
...I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive....
Let's also consider:
1) Samsonov had significant previous professional expertise in electromagnetically resonant Radio Frequency Cavities and waveguides. He wrote that he assessed resonance based on his scalar network analyzer:
Samsonov wrote:
The author then built the actual cavity from a sheet of 0.5 mm copper using a pair of FR4 plates for side walls and verified its resonance modes with a scalar network analyzer (Figure 4(c)).
(Figure 4c from Samsonov, showing resonance, with S11 plot, shown below in attachment)
2) Samsonov modeled his experiments, ahead of time, using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis
3) Samsonov determined that his experiment was going to resonate in TE012 mode shape. All TE0np mode shapes are notorious for:
a) resulting in higher Q than TM mode shapes, hence the bandwidth of resonance is narrower than for TM mode shapes. To be at resonance and stay at resonance is more difficult for TE0np modes, as also experienced by NASA for TE012, which decided to continue with TM212 because it was too difficult to excite TE012.
b) as documented in several textbooks (i.e. Collin) it is more difficult to excite a TE mode shape than to excite a TM mode shape
4) It is much more difficult to verify a TE mode shape than a TM mode shape using an infrared thermal camera because the TM mode shapes have associated currents due to the parallel transverse magnetic field in the azimuthal direction and due to the normal electric field in the axial direction, while the TE modes do not produce significant electric fields on the metal, because TE modes do not have an electric field component normal to the metal. There is only the magnetic field perpendicular to the azimuthal and longitudinal directions that is parallel to the (big and small) ends that can produce a current on the wall. Since the TE mode shapes result in higher Q, there is less dissipation at the walls and hence the TE0np mode shapes are more difficult to assess with an infrared thermal camera.
Regarding the network analyzer. They normally output a increasing sweep frequency to measure feedback at a set sample rate time. The sweeping output doesn't create a stable standing wave mode as it sweeps frequency in the frustum, especially when dealing with a picky narrow BW mode TE012. http://tinyurl.com/jjo7pja
He was down around 20db. rfmwguy or monomorphic what was your VNA showing?
Shell
-
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive. And with the end-plates attached in only four places each, basically he created a frustum shaped antenna, not a true cavity. An IR video would likely have shown the RF escaping through the slits and no resonance pattern.
You beat me to it Jamie. There was no way resonance was going to be attained with the mechanical design Samsonov had. His very low power combined with his inexperience with mechanical cavity design was never going to produce a force above error IMO. Its disappointing he wrote a paper about it after only one quick attempt to try it out.
While his basic idea was on the right track, his execution was not. Unfortunately, many keep referring to his effort as proof there is no thrust. Thanks for the keen observation.
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
Thanks, I'll take your advice. I would like to play around with magnetic fields and forces on wires though involving ~1-3 Amps DC and maybe around 1000 turn coils. Is there a way I could accidentally harm myself?
Yes, very defiantly. That's a great flyback transformer, a real heart stopper if you're shocked.
Shell
-
...I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive....
Let's also consider:
1) Samsonov had significant previous professional expertise in electromagnetically resonant Radio Frequency Cavities and waveguides. He wrote that he assessed resonance based on his scalar network analyzer:
Samsonov wrote:
The author then built the actual cavity from a sheet of 0.5 mm copper using a pair of FR4 plates for side walls and verified its resonance modes with a scalar network analyzer (Figure 4(c)).
(Figure 4c from Samsonov, showing resonance, with S11 plot, shown below in attachment)
2) Samsonov modeled his experiments, ahead of time, using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis
3) Samsonov determined that his experiment was going to resonate in TE012 mode shape. All TE0np mode shapes are notorious for:
a) resulting in higher Q than TM mode shapes, hence the bandwidth of resonance is narrower than for TM mode shapes. To be at resonance and stay at resonance is more difficult for TE0np modes, as also experienced by NASA for TE012, which decided to continue with TM212 because it was too difficult to excite TE012.
b) as documented in several textbooks (i.e. Collin) it is more difficult to excite a TE mode shape than to excite a TM mode shape
4) It is much more difficult to verify a TE mode shape than a TM mode shape using an infrared thermal camera because the TM mode shapes have associated currents due to the parallel transverse magnetic field in the azimuthal direction and due to the normal electric field in the axial direction, while the TE modes do not produce significant electric fields on the metal, because TE modes do not have an electric field component normal to the metal. There is only the magnetic field perpendicular to the azimuthal and longitudinal directions that is parallel to the (big and small) ends that can produce a current on the wall. Since the TE mode shapes result in higher Q, there is less dissipation at the walls and hence the TE0np mode shapes are more difficult to assess with an infrared thermal camera.
Regarding the network analyzer. They normally output a increasing sweep frequency to measure feedback at a set sample rate time. The sweeping output doesn't create a stable standing wave mode as it sweeps frequency in the frustum, especially when dealing with a picky narrow BW mode TE012. http://tinyurl.com/jjo7pja
He was down around 20db. rfmwguy or monomorphic what was your VNA showing?
Shell
20dB indicates poor Q. It is what I was seeing on 1701. !701A was around double that with polishing, soldering and sealed seams. One of the sweeps I did is below. I saw as high as 60dB RL, but could not reproduce it. Most sweeps were a minimum 40dB.
p.s. WarpTech, if you want to update my center freq using this chart, feel free. The experimental antenna did change the ctr from ~2441, but the general RL shape was not impacted.
-
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive. And with the end-plates attached in only four places each, basically he created a frustum shaped antenna, not a true cavity. An IR video would likely have shown the RF escaping through the slits and no resonance pattern.
I saw the gaps between the FR4 and cone as well and thought the same as you that this would lead to killing the Q and any hope of measured thrust.
This drive is easy to make not work, but incredibly tough to make work. So many details have to be exactly right.
Shell
Its worse than that I'm afraid...this is copper tape folded and partially soldered. Adhesives, even "conductive" adhesives are not friendly with MW. I didn't feel like criticizing his efforts...that is until his paper was put out claiming no thrust. Fair game now.
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
Thanks, I'll take your advice. I would like to play around with magnetic fields and forces on wires though involving ~1-3 Amps DC and maybe around 1000 turn coils. Is there a way I could accidentally harm myself?
Yes, very defiantly. That's a great flyback transformer, a real heart stopper if you're shocked.
Shell
Thanks. My concept amounted to a single wire wound in a toroidal coil where ever few turns the wire passes through the middle of the coil so as to be inside the magnetic field. The same current creates the field and also passes through the field so has a force on it (of course, unfortunately, not a net force). It ends up being just a DC variant of a Slepian 'drive'. I was thinking since it's only a few Volts DC it would just take a few seconds to ramp up or down due to inductance but I can see now there could be a huge back emf if shorted. Thanks again.
-
...I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive....
Let's also consider:
1) Samsonov had significant previous professional expertise in electromagnetically resonant Radio Frequency Cavities and waveguides. He wrote that he assessed resonance based on his scalar network analyzer:
Samsonov wrote:
The author then built the actual cavity from a sheet of 0.5 mm copper using a pair of FR4 plates for side walls and verified its resonance modes with a scalar network analyzer (Figure 4(c)).
(Figure 4c from Samsonov, showing resonance, with S11 plot, shown below in attachment)
2) Samsonov modeled his experiments, ahead of time, using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis
3) Samsonov determined that his experiment was going to resonate in TE012 mode shape. All TE0np mode shapes are notorious for:
a) resulting in higher Q than TM mode shapes, hence the bandwidth of resonance is narrower than for TM mode shapes. To be at resonance and stay at resonance is more difficult for TE0np modes, as also experienced by NASA for TE012, which decided to continue with TM212 because it was too difficult to excite TE012.
b) as documented in several textbooks (i.e. Collin) it is more difficult to excite a TE mode shape than to excite a TM mode shape
4) It is much more difficult to verify a TE mode shape than a TM mode shape using an infrared thermal camera because the TM mode shapes have associated currents due to the parallel transverse magnetic field in the azimuthal direction and due to the normal electric field in the axial direction, while the TE modes do not produce significant electric fields on the metal, because TE modes do not have an electric field component normal to the metal. There is only the magnetic field perpendicular to the azimuthal and longitudinal directions that is parallel to the (big and small) ends that can produce a current on the wall. Since the TE mode shapes result in higher Q, there is less dissipation at the walls and hence the TE0np mode shapes are more difficult to assess with an infrared thermal camera.
Regarding the network analyzer. They normally output a increasing sweep frequency to measure feedback at a set sample rate time. The sweeping output doesn't create a stable standing wave mode as it sweeps frequency in the frustum, especially when dealing with a picky narrow BW mode TE012. http://tinyurl.com/jjo7pja
He was down around 20db. rfmwguy or monomorphic what was your VNA showing?
Shell
VNA's work in FSCW mode (frequency stepped, continuous wave). The VCO(voltage controlled oscillator) will be adjusted to a defined tuning voltage* which may an integer of a PLL(phase locked loop) based frequency.
After a settling time the system is in a steady state mode, than the measurement of the voltage of the outputmixers is performed and digitalizized with an analog/digital converter** to derive the scattering matrix.
After this the next frequency step will be adjusted, and so on.
The whole process to scan a frequency band this way takes only a few seconds (depending on the total number of samples/frequency).
There is no continuous chirp signal at that measurement ;)
* In fact the exact voltage will be regulated with the PLL to hold the frequency stable.
** There is always an oversampling/integration time, which means not only one voltage sample is taken at each frequency, because of the thermal noise at the detector.
-
Samsonov (RFPlumber) is the only citizen scientist to this date that has performed experiments without power cables (shown by Prof. Yang to be the source of experimental artifacts in her prior experiments), and using a battery in a self-integrated package not using the awful magnetron (responsible for lots of experimental artifacts).
Samsonov concluded that there was no thrust in the EM Drive within the relative error of his experiments. Naturally, Samsonov's finding of no thrust is not pleasing to those that would like to see a revolutionary breaktrhough in Space Propulsion. Naturally we all like to hear positive news rather than negative news.
Samsonov (RFPlumber) stopped posting at NSF, more than 7 months ago.
It would have been better to address criticism of his experimental technique while he could answer critics at NSF, rather than now, since he may (or may not) have good answers to address such criticism. But hindsight is 20/20 ;)
Hopefully in the future we can address such criticism of experiments in a timely manner while experiments are being reported at NSF rather than months afterwards, when the researcher is no longer active at NSF.
-
Samsonov (RFPlumber) is the only citizen scientist to this date that has performed experiments without power cables (shown by Prof. Yang to be the source of experimental artifacts in her prior experiments), and using a battery in a self-integrated package not using the awful magnetron (responsible for lots of experimental artifacts).
Samsonov concluded that there was no thrust in the EM Drive within the relative error of his experiments. Naturally, Samsonov's finding of no thrust is not pleasing with those that would like to see a revolutionary breaktrhough in Space Propulsion. Naturally we all like to hear positive news rather than negative news.
Samsonov (RFPlumber) stopped posting at NSF, more than 7 months ago.
It would have been better to address criticism of his experimental technique while he could answer critics at NSF, rather than now, since he may (or may not) have good answers to address such criticism. But hindsight is 20/20 ;)
Hopefully in the future we can address such criticism of experiments in a timely manner while experiments are being reported at NSF rather than months afterwards, when the researcher is no longer active at NSF.
I assume you are addressing me? If this is the case, like you, there were times I did not post actively on NSF like back then. His departure and my inactive status should not preclude very valid points by several actual builders, especially considering you made mention of his expertise without apparent evidence. This was a poorly constructed cavity that any engineer with RF experience would recognize as poor. With that, I would characterize this as lack of expertise with evidence posted by monomorphic and shell.
-
Are there specialist companies that can build and test a cavity to resonance? Or is it so state of the art that builders have to figure out the method themselves?
-
Are there specialist companies that can build and test a cavity to resonance? Or is it so state of the art that builders have to figure out the method themselves?
Testing is by anyone with an RF lab is available. Building one is a different deal altogether. I would say no.
-
Are there specialist companies that can build and test a cavity to resonance? Or is it so state of the art that builders have to figure out the method themselves?
The lowest cost way to make a solid cavity would be to create a 3D printed part and then have it sand casted in Aluminum. I believe this is how Shawyer is doing it. It's much cheaper than hogging it out of a solid block.
-
Samsonov (RFPlumber) is the only citizen scientist to this date that has performed experiments without power cables (shown by Prof. Yang to be the source of experimental artifacts in her prior experiments), and using a battery in a self-integrated package not using the awful magnetron (responsible for lots of experimental artifacts).
Samsonov concluded that there was no thrust in the EM Drive within the relative error of his experiments. Naturally, Samsonov's finding of no thrust is not pleasing to those that would like to see a revolutionary breaktrhough in Space Propulsion. Naturally we all like to hear positive news rather than negative news.
Samsonov (RFPlumber) stopped posting at NSF, more than 7 months ago.
It would have been better to address criticism of his experimental technique while he could answer critics at NSF, rather than now, since he may (or may not) have good answers to address such criticism. But hindsight is 20/20 ;)
Hopefully in the future we can address such criticism of experiments in a timely manner while experiments are being reported at NSF rather than months afterwards, when the researcher is no longer active at NSF.
Dr. Rodal,
I politely voiced my criticisms on his build and testing, even offered advise to correct what I saw was quite obvious, but he refused to answer me. So be it was my thought, it will be a failed test. It was. Even though he got some things right, when you're running low power as he was your build should be airtight.
Considering these issues of gaps in construction, untested antenna design, coax cable length for the antenna, just covering a few it would mean to me those issues negate calling it a null test. Inclusive would be a better term.
Shell
-
Modes of a parabolic microcavity. It's not a frustum, but it's interestingly close.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/publications/dome.pdf
-
Modes of a parabolic microcavity. It's not a frustum, but it's interestingly close.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/publications/dome.pdf
Nice, a bit of gold you found WarpTech.
Shell
-
Modes of a parabolic microcavity. It's not a frustum, but it's interestingly close.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/publications/dome.pdf
Nice, a bit of gold you found WarpTech.
Shell
The reflection of the "other end" in the flat end plates of the frustum make it not so asymmetrical after all. There is always a reflected symmetry on the flat end plates.
-
Modes of a parabolic microcavity. It's not a frustum, but it's interestingly close.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/publications/dome.pdf
Nice, a bit of gold you found WarpTech.
Shell
The reflection of the "other end" in the flat end plates of the frustum make it not so asymmetrical after all. There is always a reflected symmetry on the flat end plates.
Yep. Although the conical walls and the large spherical endplate are critical to the mode shapes and energy concentrations in the small endplate area.
Shell
-
It is great to see a consensus being formed advising people not to use << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>.
Eugene Samsonov (NSF user "RFPlumber") was the first "citizen scientist" to conduct EM Drive experiments without a magnetron and using a battery in a self-integrated test, using no power cables whatsoever.
The only researcher (aside from Prof. Juan Yang) to report EM Drive experiments without power cables, to this date.
http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0153
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
We look forward to others following the trailblazing of Samsonov by conducting further tests without the awful magnetron, which you are right << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>,and instead using a battery operated test without power cables.
There have been other experimenters from whom we have not heard in some time. Solid state 50 - 100 Watt 2.5 GHz RF amp are not cheap and they don't seem to last very long when used to drive cone shaped cavities; even by the more experienced experimenters on this forum. The high failure rate of solid state amps would suggest that resonance is not being achieved for very long. So any criticism of Samsonov's cavity could apply to anyone else's. Everyone agrees a torque pendulum experiment that is battery powered and has no cables would eliminate several error sources. However that appears to be almost impossible because of the failure rate of higher power solid state RF amps. We do have Yang's second series of experiments that used a magnetron to fill in that one kind of experiment. Maybe there are other experiments that can be done to eliminate the possibility of error forces and reinforce the EM-Drive theory.
-
It is great to see a consensus being formed advising people not to use << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>.
Eugene Samsonov (NSF user "RFPlumber") was the first "citizen scientist" to conduct EM Drive experiments without a magnetron and using a battery in a self-integrated test, using no power cables whatsoever.
The only researcher (aside from Prof. Juan Yang) to report EM Drive experiments without power cables, to this date.
http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0153
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
We look forward to others following the trailblazing of Samsonov by conducting further tests without the awful magnetron, which you are right << the magnetron is a terrible choice>>,and instead using a battery operated test without power cables.
There have been other experimenters from whom we have not heard in some time. Solid state 50 - 100 Watt 2.5 GHz RF amp are not cheap and they don't seem to last very long when used to drive cone shaped cavities; even by the more experienced experimenters on this forum. The high failure rate of solid state amps would suggest that resonance is not being achieved for very long. So any criticism of Samsonov's cavity could apply to anyone else's. Everyone agrees a torque pendulum experiment that is battery powered and has no cables would eliminate several error sources. However that appears to be almost impossible because of the failure rate of higher power solid state RF amps. We do have Yang's second series of experiments that used a magnetron to fill in that one kind of experiment. Maybe there are other experiments that can be done to eliminate the possibility of error forces and reinforce the EM-Drive theory.
any design needs to include some way of stopping the energy feeding back into the rf source. to allow the rf source to be destroyed after a few experiments is wasteful and expensive. not to mention any results obtained would be dubious if the rf source was feeding back on itself
-
any design needs to include some way of stopping the energy feeding back into the rf source. to allow the rf source to be destroyed after a few experiments is wasteful and expensive. not to mention any results obtained would be dubious if the rf source was feeding back on itself
I plan to use an isolator or circulator (and monitor the reflected signal). You agree?
Peter
-
any design needs to include some way of stopping the energy feeding back into the rf source. to allow the rf source to be destroyed after a few experiments is wasteful and expensive. not to mention any results obtained would be dubious if the rf source was feeding back on itself
I plan to use an isolator or circulator (and monitor the reflected signal). You agree?
Peter
Looking at Roger's recent patent he has a second antenna inside the cavity. Is this used for monitoring the reflected signal? If so is this used to regulate some kind of circuit for absorbing the reflected signal before it causes damage? Is this an off the shelf item or does it need to be developed?
-
Samsonov deserves great credit for this accomplishment. Samsonov concluded from his experiment that there was no thrust, within the relative error of his experiments.
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
I've looked closely at Samsonov's frustum and can say with confidence he probably never achieved resonance. Since he did not confirm resonance with an IR camera, his null result should really be labeled inconclusive. And with the end-plates attached in only four places each, basically he created a frustum shaped antenna, not a true cavity. An IR video would likely have shown the RF escaping through the slits and no resonance pattern.
It was a well designed and built pilot experiment, I would say. I especially appreciate his well written report of the experiments, which includes most if not all of the relevant details.
From this report we can conclude though that the experiments were rather limited:
1) the sensitivity of the swinging platform was too small for the expected forces. Given the low Q, extrapolating from Brady et al, 2014, I would expect a maximum force of the order of 100 micronewtons (uN). Now his readout resolution was 13 uN, but from his figures 6-8 I estimate that he was not able to measure forces of, say, 50 uN.
2) It doesn't seem to be too difficult to take measures to reduce the thermal effects he identified. (what is missing in the report - browsing it quickly again - is whether this swinging platform is enclosed in a small cage or in a larger room, his garage maybe.)
3) No other orientations of the frustum are used.
4) Using only one mode (TE012) is rather limited (but you can say Brady et al, 2014, reported a significant force at this mode...). And I read at this forum that it is questioned whether Samsonov measured at resonance at all.
So, it is a pity that he seems to be discouraged and not has made an improved setup following this pilot experiment. I don't regards it to be a strong sign the EMdrive does not work (but on the other hand, I have neither seen reports of experiments which are strong sign it DOES work...).
-
I agree that Samsonov's experiment is the gold standard - solid state and battery powered - which is the direction most of us are going now. I would also add to that list a frustum machined from solid copper and not thin wall copper.
Is this really necessary? What if you don't care about the force being a factor of 2 lower than the maximum achievable?
(Of course, the larger a possible anomalous force is compared to disturbing actions (heat, turbulence, magnetic forces), the easier it is to prove its existence.)
regards,
Peter
-
any design needs to include some way of stopping the energy feeding back into the rf source. to allow the rf source to be destroyed after a few experiments is wasteful and expensive. not to mention any results obtained would be dubious if the rf source was feeding back on itself
I plan to use an isolator or circulator (and monitor the reflected signal). You agree?
Peter
Looking at Roger's recent patent he has a second antenna inside the cavity. Is this used for monitoring the reflected signal? If so is this used to regulate some kind of circuit for absorbing the reflected signal before it causes damage? Is this an off the shelf item or does it need to be developed?
Reflected power is measured on the feedline. The second antenna may be used to sample the power inside the cavity. At best that would be an indirect method of measuring reflected power. Circulators have been used by Yang and others to absorb the reflectd power. Resonant cavities shouldn't require circulators on the feedline if they are resonant. The fact that enough power is being reflected from the cavity to damage an amplifier indicates the cavity is not resonant at the frequency that is fed in and therefore little power is being transferred to the cavity; regardless of the claimed Q.
-
any design needs to include some way of stopping the energy feeding back into the rf source. to allow the rf source to be destroyed after a few experiments is wasteful and expensive. not to mention any results obtained would be dubious if the rf source was feeding back on itself
I plan to use an isolator or circulator (and monitor the reflected signal). You agree?
Peter
Looking at Roger's recent patent he has a second antenna inside the cavity. Is this used for monitoring the reflected signal? If so is this used to regulate some kind of circuit for absorbing the reflected signal before it causes damage? Is this an off the shelf item or does it need to be developed?
Reflected power is measured on the feedline. The second antenna may be used to sample the power inside the cavity. At best that would be an indirect method of measuring reflected power. Circulators have been used by Yang and others to absorb the reflectd power. Resonant cavities shouldn't require circulators on the feedline if they are resonant. The fact that enough power is being reflected from the cavity to damage an amplifier indicates the cavity is not resonant at the frequency that is fed in and therefore little power is being transferred to the cavity; regardless of the claimed Q.
No. This implication is missleading i.e. this isn't the full story.
A huge reflection coefficient has to do with an impedance mismatch. The cavity can still resonate if the geometric property fits to the frequency (n*pi/2) but at the same time it can be strong over- or under- coupled. In such a situation (K<<1 or K>>1; K=coupling factor) the reflected power is high, nevertheless the cavity may in resonance/satisfy resonance conditions.
-
emdrive fan here.
Here's my latest attempt to make sense of emdrive : Consider reflection vs absorption. If a plate reflects a photon, its will take twice as much force from the photon than if it absorbed the photon. Like if a person catches a ball, it takes twice as much force to reflect the ball back at the same speed than to catch it and stop it.
The EMDrive's 2 end plates may be reflecting and absorbing photons at different rates to each other, hence they will have different radiations pressure and different forces. In other words, one plate reflects photons more, while the other absorbs them more. Hence net force, hence thrust.
This suggests that the different sizes of endplates is not necessary. An alternative is a straight cavity, with different end plate materials than absorb and reflect at different rates to each other.
thanks for any replys :)
-
emdrive fan here.
Here's my latest attempt to make sense of emdrive : Consider reflection vs absorption. If a plate reflects a photon, its will take twice as much force from the photon than if it absorbed the photon. Like if a person catches a ball, it takes twice as much force to reflect the ball back at the same speed than to catch it and stop it.
The EMDrive's 2 end plates may be reflecting and absorbing photons at different rates to each other, hence they will have different radiations pressure and different forces. In other words, one plate reflects photons more, while the other absorbs them more. Hence net force, hence thrust.
This suggests that the different sizes of endplates is not necessary. An alternative is a straight cavity, with different end plate materials than absorb and reflect at different rates to each other.
thanks for any replys :)
That's more or less where I've been trying to go in calculating the forces within the cavity, except using atmospheric air molecules instead of photons. Air particles have the major advantage of being far more massive than photons hence differences in directional acceleration/rebound would be far more pronounced.
But unfortunately irregardless of what happens within the cavity, the COM issue still exists. For that idea to work the air particles or photons would need to be only an intermediary for some other mechanism which allows/causes something massive to escape.
-
emdrive fan here.
Here's my latest attempt to make sense of emdrive : Consider reflection vs absorption. If a plate reflects a photon, its will take twice as much force from the photon than if it absorbed the photon. Like if a person catches a ball, it takes twice as much force to reflect the ball back at the same speed than to catch it and stop it.
The EMDrive's 2 end plates may be reflecting and absorbing photons at different rates to each other, hence they will have different radiations pressure and different forces. In other words, one plate reflects photons more, while the other absorbs them more. Hence net force, hence thrust.
This suggests that the different sizes of endplates is not necessary. An alternative is a straight cavity, with different end plate materials than absorb and reflect at different rates to each other.
thanks for any replys :)
That's more or less where I've been trying to go in calculating the forces within the cavity, except using atmospheric air molecules instead of photons. Air particles have the major advantage of being far more massive than photons hence differences in directional acceleration/rebound would be far more pronounced.
But unfortunately irregardless of what happens within the cavity, the COM issue still exists. For that idea to work the air particles or photons would need to be only an intermediary for some other mechanism which allows/causes something massive to escape.
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum. As long as the internal potential energy moves along this gradient to be dissipated, the frustum will move the other way. COM is not violated, regardless of the fact that nothing but heat is escaping. The heat is not a propellant, the internal gradient and the amount of energy flowing with that gradient is.
-
emdrive fan here.
Here's my latest attempt to make sense of emdrive : Consider reflection vs absorption. If a plate reflects a photon, its will take twice as much force from the photon than if it absorbed the photon. Like if a person catches a ball, it takes twice as much force to reflect the ball back at the same speed than to catch it and stop it.
The EMDrive's 2 end plates may be reflecting and absorbing photons at different rates to each other, hence they will have different radiations pressure and different forces. In other words, one plate reflects photons more, while the other absorbs them more. Hence net force, hence thrust.
This suggests that the different sizes of endplates is not necessary. An alternative is a straight cavity, with different end plate materials than absorb and reflect at different rates to each other.
thanks for any replys :)
That's more or less where I've been trying to go in calculating the forces within the cavity, except using atmospheric air molecules instead of photons. Air particles have the major advantage of being far more massive than photons hence differences in directional acceleration/rebound would be far more pronounced.
But unfortunately irregardless of what happens within the cavity, the COM issue still exists. For that idea to work the air particles or photons would need to be only an intermediary for some other mechanism which allows/causes something massive to escape.
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum. As long as the internal potential energy moves along this gradient to be dissipated, the frustum will move the other way. COM is not violated, regardless of the fact that nothing but heat is escaping. The heat is not a propellant, the internal gradient and the amount of energy flowing with that gradient is.
If that's the correct operating principle, can you think of an easier way to set up a proper gradient without fancy microwave equipment and cavities?
-
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum.
In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
Any emdrive experimenters out there want to try building a straight sided cavity with different material endplates?
Am I right in thinking that emdrive experimenters have already noted a change in thrust by varying the end plate materials?
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
-
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum.
In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
Any emdrive experimenters out there want to try building a straight sided cavity with different material endplates?
Am I right in thinking that emdrive experimenters have already noted a change in thrust by varying the end plate materials?
Correct with a caveat. This sets up a gradient. But the resonance produces a large enough equivalent field "mass" to move along this gradient with enough force to move the frustum the other way. m1*a1 = m2*a2. Without a resonant cavity, the amount of power required would be enormous.
As far as I know, copper, HDPE, PTFE and Shawyer's super conductor, and spherical end plate designs, are the only experiments that have been done with different materials and/or shapes. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the results as they pertain to my my model.
-
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum.
In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
...
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for an exact solution. The location of the peak in energy density is due to the mode shape, and the mode shapes are a result of the eigenvalue problem which is dictated by the equations of motion and the boundary conditions, and not by dissipation.
Here you have the first 3 TE mode shapes in an electromagnetically resonant truncated cone cavity.
There is no change whatsoever in absorption at each end for these modes. The modes are a result of the eigenvalue problem. That's why they are called eigenmodes !
TE011
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy1.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE012
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy2.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE013
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy3.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have mode shapes in any vibration problem, in a string for example, or in a horn instrument.
See any undergraduate textbooks in Physics for discussion of the eigenvalue problem: Halliday and Resnick, or the Feynman Lectures in Physics, etc.
The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
You have mode shapes even with zero damping !
(http://milwaukeemakerspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/chime_mode_shapes-1024x454.jpg)
(http://www.sensorprod.com/news/white-papers/2006-08_vat/fig-3.jpg)
(https://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2011/woodhouse/drum_modes.jpg)
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
The problem with a laser is the wave velocity is too fast. ~c, so T ~ P/c. With the frustum, T ~ P/v, where;
1/v ~ -(1/w)*d[ln(Q)]/dr
Where w is 2pi*f. We can replace Q by tau for decay time, or replace Q by Reactive power stored over Real power lost per cycle, as a function of r from the apex of the cone. We could cut the frustum simulations from front to back into circular cross sections and look at how much energy is stored and how much energy is lost in each cross section to calculate the derivative of Q. We can also approximate this as;
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
Where L is the length, and the Q's are at the big and small end, respectively.
In any case, this is the equation we need to maximize by design. The larger this value is, the more thrust we will get.
Todd
-
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum.
In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
...
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for an exact solution. The location of the peak in energy density is due to the mode shape, and the mode shapes are a result of the eigenvalue problem which is dictated by the equations of motion and the boundary conditions, and not by dissipation.
Here you have the first 3 TE mode shapes in an electromagnetically resonant truncated cone cavity.
There is no change whatsoever in absorption at each end for these modes. The modes are a result of the eigenvalue problem. That's why they are called eigenmodes !
TE011
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy1.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE012
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy2.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE013
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy3.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have mode shapes in any vibration problem, in a string for example, or in a horn instrument.
The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
You have mode shapes even with zero damping !
(http://milwaukeemakerspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/chime_mode_shapes-1024x454.jpg)
Thanks Jose, but I do not think he or I meant to imply that the mode shapes were due to absorption. Only that the energy lost will be asymmetrical. Greg Eagan's derivation does not take into consideration sources or sinks, both of which contribute to a divergence of decay time and energy (Volt-sec), that is not present in his derivation. He assumes all waves to be time symmetric and therefore average to zero, but that is not necessarily true when there are sources and sinks. Isn't that true?
-
...Thanks Jose, but I do not think he or I meant to imply that the mode shapes were due to absorption. Only that the energy lost will be asymmetrical. Greg Eagan's derivation does not take into consideration sources or sinks, both of which contribute to a divergence of decay time and energy (Volt-sec), that is not present in his derivation. He assumes all waves to be time symmetric and therefore average to zero, but that is not necessarily true when there are sources and sinks. Isn't that true?
Greg Egan solved the eigenvalue problem under well-stated assumptions.
Whenever Monomorphic or X_Ray have shown a FEKO solution, or Paul March or Samsonov (RFPlumber) have shown a COMSOL solution, they have solved the eigenvalue problem too, just like Egan, but done it numerically, instead of analytically.
All those solutions compare very well with experiments, concerning eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies.
The difference is that those solutions (COMSOL, FEKO, Egan) cannot calculate any thrust, since Maxwell's equations will show no thrust for a closed cavity, acting as a closed system. Even if you allow for dissipation of heat and release of heat into space as heat radiation one can readily show that the thrust would be less than that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and hence much less than what is claimed for the EM Drive.
Aren't you justifying the EM Drive thrust as due to a polarized quantum vacuum theory?
(not due to heat dissipation and heat radiating into Space)?
-
...Thanks Jose, but I do not think he or I meant to imply that the mode shapes were due to absorption. Only that the energy lost will be asymmetrical. Greg Eagan's derivation does not take into consideration sources or sinks, both of which contribute to a divergence of decay time and energy (Volt-sec), that is not present in his derivation. He assumes all waves to be time symmetric and therefore average to zero, but that is not necessarily true when there are sources and sinks. Isn't that true?
Greg Egan solved the eigenvalue problem under well-stated assumptions.
Whenever Monomorphic or X_Ray have shown a FEKO solution, or Paul March or Samsonov (RFPlumber) have shown a COMSOL solution, they have solved the eigenvalue problem too, just like Egan, but done it numerically, instead of analytically.
All those solutions compare very well with experiments, concerning eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies.
The difference is that those solutions (COMSOL, FEKO, Egan) cannot calculate any thrust, since Maxwell's equations will show no thrust for a closed cavity. Even if you allow for dissipation of heat and release of heat into space as heat radiation one can readily show that the thrust would be less than that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and hence much less than what is claimed for the EM Drive.
Aren't you justifying the EM Drive thrust as due to a polarized quantum vacuum theory?
(not due to heat dissipation and heat radiating into Space)?
Dr. Rodal, I have been looking at other EM software suites and noticed that Opera Simulation Software is the preferred package used by many scientists at CERN. http://operafea.com/product/
They have a number of application modules that are listed on that page. Many seem like they could be of benefit for our purposes. For example, the stress analysis module allows external forces and constraints to be applied globally or as boundary conditions on the surface of the model. There is a HF EM module, a dynamic EM module, and even a sputtering module!
This software is probably extremely expensive, but it looks like exactly what is needed here. I was hoping you would take a quick look through the modules and comment. Thanks!
-
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan
I looked at the link. I am right in thinking Greg is arguing against emdrive?
> The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive, since 0% or 100% dissipation makes no difference, and an open ended emdrive is effectively 100% dissipation. Which is nonsense.
I think the reason dissipation doesn't factor in Greg's analysis is that he simply doesn't consider an emdrive with a high dissipation ( absorption ) end plate.
Anyway, I consider energy distribution within the cavity to be of secondary importance. I don't know why on this forum you seem to focus on it. Roger says the thrust is generated by reaction forces at the end plates, and that seems sensible to me.
-
...
> The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive, since 0% or 100% dissipation makes no difference, and an open ended emdrive is effectively 100% dissipation. Which is nonsense.
...
The solution to the eigenvalue problem includes the boundary conditions.
What you write about <<By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive>> is incorrect, because when you have no end plates, you change the boundary conditions.
Actually without end plates, you no longer have standing waves !
-
...Dr. Rodal, I have been looking at other EM software suites and noticed that Opera Simulation Software is the preferred package used by many scientists at CERN. http://operafea.com/product/
Sorry, I am not familiar with Opera FE, and I could not find a technical paper describing what solution techniques would set it apart from other packages. I am familiar with other general solution packages like Abaqus, ANSYS, and ADINA.
Different people at CERN use different software, how do you determine which one is preferred ?.
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
Here's some theory I think is central to emdrive :
Why doesn't a 100 Watt light torch give a reaction force ( kick back ) similar to a mechanical device with a power of 100 Watts?
An example of mechanical 100 Watt thruster is : A man throwing 2kg mass projectiles at 10 m/s once per second, every second. Such action would be plenty to accelerate the man in the opposite direction of his projectiles at m/s.
But the kickback from 100 W light torch would be effectively zero by comparison.
Why? The answer is : only a tiny fraction of the energy in light is as mechanical energy \ momentum. Most of it is stored in a EM wave which is lateral to its motion. In other words, a photon is like a thrown grenade, its kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to its stored potential energy.
The key then, to making a thruster that uses light, is somehow exploiting the lateral EM energy : by converting it into parallel kinetic energy ( parallel to the motion of the thruster ).
We already know its possible to convert light to motion with near 100% efficiency : shine a light on a black body and the light will be converted to heat which is electron motion. But this is unorganised ( random ) motion. We need coherent motion.
How does a photon impart its energy into electron motion?
This question is a bit theoretical. When a photon hits an electron, the electron is exposed to the lateral electric and magnetic waves of the photon, which will push the electron laterally to the incident of the photon.
This might explain why shining a light torch does not give a significant kickback, and why an object being exposed to a light doesn't experience a significant kickback. Energy conversion between mechanical and light energy is lateral to the direction of travel of the light.
How to go about applying this line of theory to gain thrust
The photons must be incoming at a lateral angle to the intended direction of thrust. Then the lateral EM wave will act along the axis of intended thrust.
But it which direction along the axis of thrust?
If the light is incoherent, in both directions. But with a coherent laser, and with a material with precisely engineered layers of absorbing material layered with transparent material ( positioned where the EM wave would give a kick in the wrong direction ), then the magnetic and electric waves of the light will always be in the right direction to kick the thruster in the intended direction of thrust.
Well that's the end of this line of thought. Its not specific to emdrive. Its just a theory on how to convert light into motion, without using a propellent. It maybe that emdrive is somehow using this theory.
-
...
> The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive, since 0% or 100% dissipation makes no difference, and an open ended emdrive is effectively 100% dissipation. Which is nonsense.
...
The solution to the eigenvalue problem includes the boundary conditions.
What you write about <<By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive>> is incorrect, because when you have no end plates, you change the boundary conditions.
Actually without end plates, you no longer have standing waves !
To understand this, look at undergraduate textbooks in Physics for discussion of the eigenvalue problem like the Feynman Lectures in Physics, and also at a book on partial differential equations, for the role of boundary conditions.
Correct, and further, there would also be no standing waves if the boundary condition was 100% dissipation \ absorption of incident light energy. Therefore your assertion that absorption is not a factor in the energy distribution is wrong.
-
...Thanks Jose, but I do not think he or I meant to imply that the mode shapes were due to absorption. Only that the energy lost will be asymmetrical. Greg Eagan's derivation does not take into consideration sources or sinks, both of which contribute to a divergence of decay time and energy (Volt-sec), that is not present in his derivation. He assumes all waves to be time symmetric and therefore average to zero, but that is not necessarily true when there are sources and sinks. Isn't that true?
Greg Egan solved the eigenvalue problem under well-stated assumptions.
Whenever Monomorphic or X_Ray have shown a FEKO solution, or Paul March or Samsonov (RFPlumber) have shown a COMSOL solution, they have solved the eigenvalue problem too, just like Egan, but done it numerically, instead of analytically.
All those solutions compare very well with experiments, concerning eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies.
The difference is that those solutions (COMSOL, FEKO, Egan) cannot calculate any thrust, since Maxwell's equations will show no thrust for a closed cavity, acting as a closed system. Even if you allow for dissipation of heat and release of heat into space as heat radiation one can readily show that the thrust would be less than that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and hence much less than what is claimed for the EM Drive.
Aren't you justifying the EM Drive thrust as due to a polarized quantum vacuum theory?
(not due to heat dissipation and heat radiating into Space)?
Speaking of the polarizeable vacuum, traveling waves as opposed to standing waves and EM propulsion has brought back an old idea I was tinkering with a while ago. The image is attached below and comes from this forum thread here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.0 . The idea is, haven't they confirmed that the earths rotation drags on space time with gravity probe b? It reminds me of super-fluid viscosity in the youtube video I posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41462.msg1600285#msg1600285
So if we know matter has a viscous drag on space-time then the question is, "does light also have viscous drag on the quantum vacuum?" Properties of light trapped in a reflective cavity gains rest mass so there are some parallels between light and mass.
The idea was to use a superconductive wall as in the image below of the toroid with a part of the wall open and shoot light in. The light goes in and is trapped inside, going around the superconductive walls indefinitely. Eventually, if light has drag on space time then energy will be transferred from the light to the vacuum inducing a vortex. The Earth is likely to have more mass, but the velocity of light might make a larger difference. If a vortex is set up around the toroid, then the toroid wouldn't experience any net drag it appears, but if you put a ship in the middle, it should experience an unidirectional frame drag.
I can't remember the paper but there was one paper that suggested some one who had passed away had come up with derivations that light could have viscous drag on the vacuum over long distance and they wanted to explore if some of the red shift of distant light was the light losing energy to the vacuum. I'll have to see if I can find that article again. Here is the article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-012-1260-x , I would think such an experiment as the light injected into the toroid may possibly explore that question.
Energy should be lost from the light to the vacuum as the vacuum accelerates (change in frame of the light), red-shifting the light and if the vacuum effects the ship in the middle then energy should be transferred to the ship. It should set up an effect where such a vortex would induce a back flow outside the toroid vortex on the outer vacuum also. It is a bit different than the current EM drive, but is a type of EM drive working off the frame drag effect.
The odd thing about the cavity is that it would have inside a traveling wave, instead of a standing wave and there may be concerns such as feeding in light in phase to constructively interfere. (or maybe destructive interference would be desired?) There is some energy loss gradients if we consider space as viscous which reminds me of the impedance Todd speaks of which may be in a sense an exchange with the vacuum.
Also, maybe the viscous drag could increase as a non-linear function of the electric field strength of the light at some point. Instead of a toroid a cross cut of the toroid, as dual cylinders may be an easier concept to test.
-
...
> The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.
By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive, since 0% or 100% dissipation makes no difference, and an open ended emdrive is effectively 100% dissipation. Which is nonsense.
...
The solution to the eigenvalue problem includes the boundary conditions.
What you write about <<By that logic eigenmodes would be unaffected even without end plates on emdrive>> is incorrect, because when you have no end plates, you change the boundary conditions.
Actually without end plates, you no longer have standing waves !
To understand this, look at undergraduate textbooks in Physics for discussion of the eigenvalue problem like the Feynman Lectures in Physics, and also at a book on partial differential equations, for the role of boundary conditions.
Correct, and further, there would also be no standing waves if the boundary condition was 100% dissipation \ absorption of incident light energy. Therefore your assertion that absorption is not a factor in the energy distribution is wrong.
If you are going to quote me, please use an actual quote and do it in context.
Please read what I wrote.
What I stated was that << The eigenmodes are not due to dissipation at one end, or with dissipation at a node.>>.
Which is a correct statement.
You posted a question, which I took as stating that you were unsure, as you put Correct? in question marks:
...In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
...
Which I answered showing that the position of the max energy density is a function of the mode shapes. If you don't like to get an answer, you should not be posting questions.
-
Ok Rodal, whatever you say.
So, am I right in thinking you don't think emdrive can work?
-
Ok Rodal, whatever you say.
So, am I right in thinking you don't think emdrive can work?
I am not so sure of it.
PS: Now I understand that your point (and Todd's) was that due to absorption the max energy density position would change. I expect this to be a very small effect for the EM Drive, due to the high Q in the experiments.
Also there does not seem to be an appreciable difference between experiments involving dissipation and calculations based on COMSOL, FEKO, etc, that do not involve dissipation and simply calculate the electromagnetic field, mode shapes and frequency based on Maxwell's equations and boundary conditions.
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
The problem with a laser is the wave velocity is too fast. ~c, so T ~ P/c. With the frustum, T ~ P/v, where;
1/v ~ -(1/w)*d[ln(Q)]/dr
Where w is 2pi*f. We can replace Q by tau for decay time, or replace Q by Reactive power stored over Real power lost per cycle, as a function of r from the apex of the cone. We could cut the frustum simulations from front to back into circular cross sections and look at how much energy is stored and how much energy is lost in each cross section to calculate the derivative of Q. We can also approximate this as;
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
Where L is the length, and the Q's are at the big and small end, respectively.
In any case, this is the equation we need to maximize by design. The larger this value is, the more thrust we will get.
Todd
NASA found best results with PTFE and HDPE dielectrics at the small end, which increases tan delta (dissipation) at the small end, hence lower Qs at the small end
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
But this would argue for materials having much larger dissipation losses than HDPE or PTFE be better ?
I thought that they tried materials with more dissipation and they found worse results, not better. But have to check...to be sure
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
Also this prescription runs contrary to Shawyer, who maintains that it is better not to use any dielectrics (which were involved in his initial patents) because they decrease Q at one end and he thinks that's bad...
-
Still too many low level questions and too little data. :(
-
...Thanks Jose, but I do not think he or I meant to imply that the mode shapes were due to absorption. Only that the energy lost will be asymmetrical. Greg Eagan's derivation does not take into consideration sources or sinks, both of which contribute to a divergence of decay time and energy (Volt-sec), that is not present in his derivation. He assumes all waves to be time symmetric and therefore average to zero, but that is not necessarily true when there are sources and sinks. Isn't that true?
Greg Egan solved the eigenvalue problem under well-stated assumptions.
Whenever Monomorphic or X_Ray have shown a FEKO solution, or Paul March or Samsonov (RFPlumber) have shown a COMSOL solution, they have solved the eigenvalue problem too, just like Egan, but done it numerically, instead of analytically.
All those solutions compare very well with experiments, concerning eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies.
The difference is that those solutions (COMSOL, FEKO, Egan) cannot calculate any thrust, since Maxwell's equations will show no thrust for a closed cavity, acting as a closed system. Even if you allow for dissipation of heat and release of heat into space as heat radiation one can readily show that the thrust would be less than that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and hence much less than what is claimed for the EM Drive.
Aren't you justifying the EM Drive thrust as due to a polarized quantum vacuum theory?
(not due to heat dissipation and heat radiating into Space)?
That is correct. However, like GR, we cannot measure the curvature of the space-time manifold without measuring how it affects test particles of matter and light waves. The same is true in the PV Model, we cannot directly measure the refractive index, we can only measure its effects. It turns out that the effects of gravity on matter may be modeled identically to those of a gradient in the damping factor applied to the "underdamped oscillators" of matter.
Can we agree that if the frustum has no RF leaks, then the only way for the energy input to escape is through the material as heat conduction?
Can we also agree that once the energy has been converted into heat, it is no longer resonant "inside" the cavity?
Can we also agree that if the frustum were a "perfect conductor" the time constant for the energy stored would be infinite and there would be no heat generated?
Anything less than perfect has a finite decay time, so can we agree that this decay time is not necessarily uniform on every surface of the frustum?
If we can agree on these points, then we agree that there can be a gradient in the damping factor that mimics the potential gradient of a gravitational field.
Thank you.
Todd
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
The problem with a laser is the wave velocity is too fast. ~c, so T ~ P/c. With the frustum, T ~ P/v, where;
1/v ~ -(1/w)*d[ln(Q)]/dr
Where w is 2pi*f. We can replace Q by tau for decay time, or replace Q by Reactive power stored over Real power lost per cycle, as a function of r from the apex of the cone. We could cut the frustum simulations from front to back into circular cross sections and look at how much energy is stored and how much energy is lost in each cross section to calculate the derivative of Q. We can also approximate this as;
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
Where L is the length, and the Q's are at the big and small end, respectively.
In any case, this is the equation we need to maximize by design. The larger this value is, the more thrust we will get.
Todd
NASA found best results with PTFE and HDPE dielectrics at the small end, which increases tan delta (dissipation) at the small end, hence lower Qs at the small end
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
But this would argue for materials having much larger dissipation losses than HDPE or PTFE be better ?
I thought that they tried materials with more dissipation and they found worse results, not better. But have to check...to be sure
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
Also this prescription runs contrary to Shawyer, who maintains that it is better not to use any dielectrics (which were involved in his initial patents) because they decrease Q at one end and he thinks that's bad...
I would somewhat agree with the dielectric inserts although other tests have shown that thrusts can be shown w/o dielectrics.
EagleWorks was able to measure with a TE012 Q 22,000 2.6Watts 55.4 uN of thrust. Impressive.
Shell
http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
Grab from page 18 of the
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*
, Harold G. White†
, Paul March‡
, James T. Lawrence§
, and Frank J. Davies**
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058
-
...
I would somewhat agree with the dielectric inserts although other tests have shown that thrusts can be shown w/o dielectrics.
EagleWorks was able to measure with a TE012 Q 22,000 2.6Watts 55.4 uN of thrust. Impressive.
Shell
http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
Grab from page 18 of the
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*
, Harold G. White†
, Paul March‡
, James T. Lawrence§
, and Frank J. Davies**
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058
Yes, the story of the EM Drive continues to be quite confusive ;)
Just to make it clear those numbers for TE012 by NASA Eagleworks were achieved also with a HDPE polymer insert at the small end of the EM Drive.
Although that test had a force/InputPower higher than any other test ever achieved at Eagleworks, they appear to never have tried TE012 again, because it was difficult to achieve TE012 resonance again...
And, according to my recollection, Eagleworks tried other polymer inserts with higher tan delta dissipation than HDPE and PTFE and they got ... worse results . So there is no clear data indicating that higher dissipation is better at the small end, if my recollection is correct...
-
The problem with a laser is the wave velocity is too fast. ~c, so T ~ P/c. With the frustum, T ~ P/v, where;
1/v ~ -(1/w)*d[ln(Q)]/dr
Where w is 2pi*f. We can replace Q by tau for decay time, or replace Q by Reactive power stored over Real power lost per cycle, as a function of r from the apex of the cone. We could cut the frustum simulations from front to back into circular cross sections and look at how much energy is stored and how much energy is lost in each cross section to calculate the derivative of Q. We can also approximate this as;
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
Where L is the length, and the Q's are at the big and small end, respectively.
In any case, this is the equation we need to maximize by design. The larger this value is, the more thrust we will get.
Todd
NASA found best results with PTFE and HDPE dielectrics at the small end, which increases tan delta (dissipation) at the small end, hence lower Qs at the small end
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
But this would argue for materials having much larger dissipation losses than HDPE or PTFE be better ?
I thought that they tried materials with more dissipation and they found worse results, not better. But have to check...to be sure
Also this prescription runs contrary to Shawyer, who maintains that it is better not to use any dielectrics (which were involved in his initial patents) because they decrease Q at one end and he thinks that's bad...
I am working my way through this data. I will let you all know what I find out.
The equation above can be viewed in two ways. Qb is very small, or Qs is very large. The acceleration "g" depends on the log of this ratio. There are a lot of ways to get the same ratio, so we need to remember the other half of the thrust equation is the equivalent "mass" of the stored energy, and m ~ Q.
T = -m*g ~ -P/v, with 1/v as above.
Like gravity, we only need a relatively small gradient in the potential to get a decent acceleration. Ideally, we want a small acceleration and a large mass, so higher Qs will dominate if we want to move larger masses.
-
...
I would somewhat agree with the dielectric inserts although other tests have shown that thrusts can be shown w/o dielectrics.
EagleWorks was able to measure with a TE012 Q 22,000 2.6Watts 55.4 uN of thrust. Impressive.
Shell
http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
Grab from page 18 of the
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*
, Harold G. White†
, Paul March‡
, James T. Lawrence§
, and Frank J. Davies**
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058
Yes, the story of the EM Drive continues to be quite confusive ;)
Just to make it clear those numbers for TE012 by NASA Eagleworks were achieved also with a HDPE polymer insert at the small end of the EM Drive.
Although that test had a force/InputPower higher than any other test ever achieved at Eagleworks, they appear to never have tried TE012 again, because it was difficult to achieve TE012 resonance again...
And, according to my recollection, Eagleworks tried other polymer inserts with higher tan delta dissipation than HDPE and PTFE and they got ... worse results . So there is no clear data indicating that higher dissipation is better at the small end, if my recollection is correct...
You're recompilation :o is correct they did find that the TE012 was a tough one to meet in the selected cavity, there were several close by frequencies that would also resonate and I believe the frequency if I read what they did on the Cannae frequency locking they did the same thing on the Q-Drive and that sounded like a mostly manual tuning. Very tough to do.
During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler
(DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.
However, since the TE012 mode had numerous other RF modes in very close proximity, it was impractical to repeatedly operate the system in this mode, so the decision was made to evaluate the TM211 modes instead.
That's been one reason I've TE mode locked with the antenna where only the TE mode will excite and the only close one is a TM. I can check with a IR camera to see if I'm exciting that TM mode.
Shell
-
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan"
Greg Egan's analysis assumes a vacuum throughout the volume of the frustum.
As soon as you put a dielectric on one side, you no longer have a vacuum and Greg's analysis I believe no longer applies. Does a dielectric change where the peak energy is in the frustum?
The reason I ask is that EW used T012 mode and reported no thrust sans dielectric. They had to add a dielectric to get thrust.
I note the T011 and T013 modes have peak energy closer to the ends of the frustum. Has anyone gathered data to show whether or not a dielectric changes thrust in those modes?
If the answers are that a dielectric moves the peak energy point in T012 then maybe you have the beginnings of some data to back one of the many hypothesis here...
The location of the stored "potential" energy and the location where that energy is more readily dissipated forms a gradient inside the frustum.
In other words, since one end-plate is absorbing more while the other is reflecting more, the energy density of the cavity will be lower nearer one end : the absorbing end. Because an absorbing wall represents an energy sink.
Correct?
...
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for an exact solution. The location of the peak in energy density is due to the mode shape, and the mode shapes are a result of the eigenvalue problem which is dictated by the equations of motion and the boundary conditions, and not by dissipation.
Here you have the first 3 TE mode shapes in an electromagnetically resonant truncated cone cavity.
There is no change whatsoever in absorption at each end for these modes. The modes are a result of the eigenvalue problem. That's why they are called eigenmodes !
TE011
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy1.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE012
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy2.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TE013
(http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/TEenergy3.gif)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
No, the location of the peak energy density is not due to any "absorption". See the excellent discussion by Greg Egan"
Greg Egan's analysis assumes a vacuum throughout the volume of the frustum.
As soon as you put a dielectric on one side, you no longer have a vacuum and Greg's analysis I believe no longer applies. Does a dielectric change where the peak energy is in the frustum?
The reason I ask is that EW used T012 mode and reported no thrust sans dielectric. They had to add a dielectric to get thrust.
I note the T011 and T013 modes have peak energy closer to the ends of the frustum. Has anyone gathered data to show whether or not a dielectric changes thrust in those modes?
If the answers are that a dielectric moves the peak energy point in T012 then maybe you have the beginnings of some data to back one of the many hypothesis here...
You pulled the first quote out of context. The discussion as I understood it was about having the end plates be made out of different metals with different resistances.
Adding a dielectric to the cavity changes the properties that the waves are propagating through for part of the volume. This changes the resonance frequency and will also affect the mode shape. People have suggested before that the additional dissipation in the dielectric may contribute to the thrust.
Most such theories I have seen have not clearly stated how this works though. Dielectric or not, classical EM theories including special relativity (but not general relativity) all yield no potential for thrust. There are some general relativity loopholes, or otherwise a theory needs some kind of new physics, maybe some kind of phantom particle that is being interacted with.
-
I just found that:
Analytic Solution of the Electromagnetic Eigenvalues Problem in a Cylindrical Resonator
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02083 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02083)
"In order to understand how a resonant accelerating cavity transfers energy to charged particles, it is important to determine how the electromagnetic modes are exited into such resonators. In this paper we present a complete analytical calculation of the resonating fields for a simple cylindrical-shaped cavity."
I do not know if it is something new
-
Here's some theory I think is central to emdrive :
Why doesn't a 100 Watt light torch give a reaction force ( kick back ) similar to a mechanical device with a power of 100 Watts?
An example of mechanical 100 Watt thruster is : A man throwing 2kg mass projectiles at 10 m/s once per second, every second. Such action would be plenty to accelerate the man in the opposite direction of his projectiles at m/s.
But the kickback from 100 W light torch would be effectively zero by comparison.
Why? The answer is : only a tiny fraction of the energy in light is as mechanical energy \ momentum. Most of it is stored in a EM wave which is lateral to its motion. In other words, a photon is like a thrown grenade, its kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to its stored potential energy.
There is a big misunderstanding. The problem is not that there is something specific to light, the problem is that the Kinetic Energy is not equally distributed between the mass ejected, and a ship or a man throwing projectiles.
the absolute value of Momentum is distributed equally, but since momentum is proportional to the speed, and Kinetic Energy proportional to the square of the speed, the Kinetic Energy is not distributed equally.
You seem to think that any mecanical thruster would give the same result. It is not the case. If your man throws 0,2kg masses at 100m/s, he will get the same thrust that in your example, but with spending 10 times more energy. Each 0,2kg mass will have 10 times more Kinetic Energy than in your example, but the momentum will be the same.
That is why an ionic drive tends to have the same energy efficiency than a photon drive if the speed of the ejected mass tends to the speed of light. It would not be very usefull to have an ionic drive that send mass to 99% of C. It is simpler to do a collimated photon rocket.
To come back to your example, I shall suppose that the man is not moving at the begining in the earth referential, and the Kinetic Energies are expressed in the Earth referential.
When the masses are ejected 10 times faster and are 100 times smaller, the same amount of energy would be spent. But the man throwing the masses gets 10 times less thrust. He gives much Kinetic energy to the masses, but he get few Kinetic Energy himself.
Thrust is proportional to the momentum of the mass ejected. Energy spent is proportional to the Kinetic Energy of the mass ejected. That is why, the faster the masses are ejected, the less energy efficient the motor is. That is why a photon drive is not energy efficient. It has nothing to see with laterality.
-
I guess I will post this here, as I did on Reddit where I asked people's opinion of divulging EmDrive information.
Based on my own concerns, the number of new people asking for help building plus the feedback I received on reddit, I've decided not to help others design, build or test an EmDrive. The exception to this is the very small group of individuals I currently work with, know and trust to have the credentials to work with this dangerous piece of gear.
As I see this project move from conjecture to reality, safety concerns have to be the #1 priority. It bears repeating, as I've done so during every guest interview I've done on science podcasts.
Do not consider live testing of an EmDrive unless you have experience in High Voltage, High Power RF and general RFI/EMI experience. Yes, the device is fascinating and has a great potential...it also has a danger associated with it. Leave it to the experts. - Dave
/soapbox
This applies if you intend to go for the kilowatt option. If you plan to work with, say 5 W, as I do, the dangers are much less, don't you agree? (so, there are many reasons to go for the low power experiments: costs, battery operated, safety, less heat, ...).
You have to put more effort in the measuring apparatus (torsion balance), that's true. '-)
-
Here's some theory I think is central to emdrive :
Why doesn't a 100 Watt light torch give a reaction force ( kick back ) similar to a mechanical device with a power of 100 Watts?
An example of mechanical 100 Watt thruster is : A man throwing 2kg mass projectiles at 10 m/s once per second, every second. Such action would be plenty to accelerate the man in the opposite direction of his projectiles at m/s.
But the kickback from 100 W light torch would be effectively zero by comparison.
Why? The answer is : only a tiny fraction of the energy in light is as mechanical energy \ momentum. Most of it is stored in a EM wave which is lateral to its motion. In other words, a photon is like a thrown grenade, its kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to its stored potential energy.
There is a big misunderstanding. The problem is not that there is something specific to light, the problem is that the Kinetic Energy is not equally distributed between the mass ejected, and a ship or a man throwing projectiles.
the absolute value of Momentum is distributed equally, but since momentum is proportional to the speed, and Kinetic Energy proportional to the square of the speed, the Kinetic Energy is not distributed equally.
You seem to think that any mecanical thruster would give the same result. It is not the case. If your man throws 0,2kg masses at 100m/s, he will get the same thrust that in your example, but with spending 10 times more energy. Each 0,2kg mass will have 10 times more Kinetic Energy than in your example, but the momentum will be the same.
That is why an ionic drive tends to have the same energy efficiency than a photon drive if the speed of the ejected mass tends to the speed of light. It would not be very usefull to have an ionic drive that send mass to 99% of C. It is simpler to do a collimated photon rocket.
To come back to your example, I shall suppose that the man is not moving at the begining in the earth referential, and the Kinetic Energies are expressed in the Earth referential.
When the masses are ejected 10 times faster and are 100 times smaller, the same amount of energy would be spent. But the man throwing the masses gets 10 times less thrust. He gives much Kinetic energy to the masses, but he get few Kinetic Energy himself.
Thrust is proportional to the momentum of the mass ejected. Energy spent is proportional to the Kinetic Energy of the mass ejected. That is why, the faster the masses are ejected, the less energy efficient the motor is. That is why a photon drive is not energy efficient. It has nothing to see with laterality.
Here is a derivation of kinetic energy exchanged on the reflection of a massive ball with another massive object. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1494279#msg1494279 The energy exchanged on a collision depends on the mass of the ball. The mass in a photon by its energy is ridiculously small so almost no energy is exchanged on a reflection. From this one can get the doppler shift in light from a reflection given here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1497641#msg1497641 Notice, a Doppler shifted photon from a reflection receives twice the Doppler shift, just as a photon sail receives twice the propulsion as a laser thuster (twice as much energy exchanged).
The only way I can see of harvesting the kinetic energy out of light in a closed cavity a.t.m. is by creating an asymmetry in the mass of light at one end of the cavity. After say, 1000 reflections of the photon losing .oo2% of its energy at one end and receiving back .001% at the other we have % energy exchanged = (.001-.002)%*1000 = -.2% energy lost by the photon, and in this case we have more effectively drained the kinetic energy from light but still not that effectively. Increasing the Q in this case would increase the thrust. We have to consider as the energy drains the light is red-shifted.
It seems to effectively change the mass of light in a cavity asymmetrically while preserving the direction of momentum may require another medium for light to exchange energy with as a propellant. This may be the Quantum vacuum or General Relativity for instance. A book Todd recommended on the QED vacuum: Book url (https://books.google.com/books?id=uPHJCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=editions:ISBN0124980805&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=editions%3AISBN0124980805&f=false) or PV (polarizable vacuum by Puthoff (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11891316723593604093&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14)) parallel to relativity. Another recent development has been the creation of electron-positron pairs from the vacuum, and one might surmise their analogue increase in osculation amplitude as they are created such that they exist with out fully existing as separate pairs. (i.e. at lower energy levels.)
-
I'm new to this massive thread. I have to say this has got to be the most exciting place to be on the internet. :D I'm still trying to catch up and understand the test results and theory.
One question I have that I'm sure has already been answers: Has anybody been able to prove that the thrust is not caused by atoms being stripped from the cavity?
-
I'm new to this massive thread. I have to say this has got to be the most exciting place to be on the internet. :D I'm still trying to catch up and understand the test results and theory.
One question I have that I'm sure has already been answers: Has anybody been able to prove that the thrust is not caused by atoms being stripped from the cavity?
If atoms inside the cavity are trapped and can not escape, then no net momentum should come from them.
-
"quite confusive" --- occasionally verging on downright confusticational!
-
I'm new to this massive thread. I have to say this has got to be the most exciting place to be on the internet. :D I'm still trying to catch up and understand the test results and theory.
One question I have that I'm sure has already been answers: Has anybody been able to prove that the thrust is not caused by atoms being stripped from the cavity?
If atoms inside the cavity are trapped and can not escape, then no net momentum should come from them.
I suppose that kaublezw means ripped from and escaping outside...
My answer will be that, on this forum, we will not agree on this question. some, like The Traveller, considers that the Emdrive effects is proven to be real. Many of us think that there are no definite proof about almost anything.
Anyway, entire atoms being ripped from the cavity does not seem very likely, IMHO, electrons being riped and accelerated seems more likely to me... that is why battery powered and vacuum experiments are strongly needed :)
-
...
You seem to think that any mecanical thruster would give the same result. It is not the case. If your man throws 0,2kg masses at 100m/s, he will get the same thrust that in your example, but with spending 10 times more energy. Each 0,2kg mass will have 10 times more Kinetic Energy than in your example, but the momentum will be the same.
That is why an ionic drive tends to have the same energy efficiency than a photon drive if the speed of the ejected mass tends to the speed of light. It would not be very usefull to have an ionic drive that send mass to 99% of C. It is simpler to do a collimated photon rocket...
Thanks Gilbert, that was a relevant post that needed to be written. I agree with what you say, and I agree that my 'harvesting the lateral EM wave of light' idea was a long shot. However, a brainstorm of such wild ideas are needed to try explain what emdrive is somehow doing : converting lightwave energy into kinetic energy.
I think this problem does have an all mechanical anology : converting the energy of bullets into slow coherent motion; this may give us insight into emdrive...
The problem of collisions at high energy momentum ratio
...i.e. firing bullets at a large boulder as a method of thrust for the boulder. The bullets, with their high energy/momentum ratio will act like a bit like waves when they hit the boulder : i.e. their energy will be converted into a spherically expanding shell of energy, bullet and boulder fragments, and a shockwave will dump heat in the boulder. Not useful for thrust. The bullet energy is converted to incoherent heat \ entrophy rather thn coherent motion of the boulder. The faster the bullet, the more wave like the collision is.
To itself as its travelling, the bullet's KE energy is coherent energy, it only becomes dispersed at collision with the boulder.
The question is then : How then to pass on the coherence of the bullets energy to the boulder?
Dough Boulder
One simple improvement it to make the boulder soft, like dough. This way, at least the bullet's energy isn't used to particlize and scatter the bullet or the boulder. The bullet decelerates slowly and comes to rest intact. But a lot of the bullets energy still goes into heating and deforming the boulder rather than pushing it.
Converting this analogy over to emdrive : step 1/2
( bear with us, its worth it! )
A slightly different, more hypothetical and fanciful idea would be to have the bullet collide sequentially with gradually slower moving small objects. The 1st object that it collides with is travelling only 1 m/s slower than the bullet and in the same direction : this highlights the idea of relative energy / momentum. From the perspective the gun and the boulder, the bullet has a high energy / momentum ratio, replete with the problem of converting energy to coherent motion at the boulder. But to an object that is nearly at rest wrt the bullet, the bullet's energy / momentum ratio is low, and momentum transfer can be efficient. After the bullet collides with the 1st object, it has slowed, it can then collide with the 2nd object, which was traveling at 2m/s slower than the bullets initial velocity, the process iterates, to the 3rd at 3m/s slower, 4th etc...
If this were possible it would be an even more effective than the dough boulder at converting the energy of the bullet into slow coherent KE - i.e. momentum.
Converting this analogy over to emdrive : step 2/2
So can something like this be happening in the emdrive cavity? Yes.
Starting with lightwaves ( the bullets ), we need to have something that will act as the set of sequentially slower moving objects. There is only one object that can be : electrons - yes a cavity full of microwaves with conductor walls will have a few loose electrons in it- electron plasma. Starting at one end of the cavity, light is passing its energy quite efficiently onto fast high energy electrons, which pass on kinetic energy to low energy electrons, until the lowest energy electrons pass on KE to one of the end plates, which absorbs the energy more efficiently as KE than if it was just being hit with the unaltered light ( initial high speed bullets ).
Lab experimenters may want to look for a gradient in electron energy within the cavity.
-
Seems almost too simple, I like it. I was awake last night and couldn't stop thinking a demonstration is all around us all the time. Much like gravity was exploited by mankind long before Newtons explanation. Still I would expect cylindrical cavities with varying endplates have been studied extensively.
A poor example off the top of my head, a common laser has partially silvered mirror at one end. Optical wavelengths reflected power are controlled with a "Brewster angle" at the junction between glass and air. Been far too long since I studied optics, have to add more to the reading list.
The problem with a laser is the wave velocity is too fast. ~c, so T ~ P/c. With the frustum, T ~ P/v, where;
1/v ~ -(1/w)*d[ln(Q)]/dr
Where w is 2pi*f. We can replace Q by tau for decay time, or replace Q by Reactive power stored over Real power lost per cycle, as a function of r from the apex of the cone. We could cut the frustum simulations from front to back into circular cross sections and look at how much energy is stored and how much energy is lost in each cross section to calculate the derivative of Q. We can also approximate this as;
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
Where L is the length, and the Q's are at the big and small end, respectively.
In any case, this is the equation we need to maximize by design. The larger this value is, the more thrust we will get.
Todd
There have been experiments where light has been slowed to very low values, such as 1 m/s within a specific gaseous environment. Combining that physics with resonant cavities of the properties of EmDrives with the correct adjustments, might allow one to use lasers to great effect instead of microwaves. Just a thought.
Also, on a related note, it has been shown that photons can be recycled between two mirrors using a gain medium with such stability that one can move the one of the mirrors with your hand and not ruin the Q.
-
I'm new to this massive thread. I have to say this has got to be the most exciting place to be on the internet. :D I'm still trying to catch up and understand the test results and theory.
One question I have that I'm sure has already been answers: Has anybody been able to prove that the thrust is not caused by atoms being stripped from the cavity?
If atoms inside the cavity are trapped and can not escape, then no net momentum should come from them.
I suppose that kaublezw means ripped from and escaping outside...
My answer will be that, on this forum, we will not agree on this question. some, like The Traveller, considers that the Emdrive effects is proven to be real. Many of us think that there are no definite proof about almost anything.
Anyway, entire atoms being ripped from the cavity does not seem very likely, IMHO, electrons being riped and accelerated seems more likely to me... that is why battery powered and vacuum experiments are strongly needed :)
Yes, I meant stripped from outside of the cavity. I've read everything that I could online, and I have to say that I'm skeptical of EmDrive's legitimacy, particularly the 2nd generation claims made by Shawyer. BUT that doesn't mean I'm not rooting for it! Also, there are a lot of haters out there that simply live to observe others' failures. But, the skepticism expressed in this thread seems to be healthy and warranted for the most part IMHO. :D
-
...
However, since the TE012 mode had numerous other RF modes in very close proximity, it was impractical to repeatedly operate the system in this mode, so the decision was made to evaluate the TM211 modes instead.
That's been one reason I've TE mode locked with the antenna where only the TE mode will excite and the only close one is a TM. I can check with a IR camera to see if I'm exciting that TM mode.
Shell
A small note: there appears to be some typo or issue in the 2014 Brady report (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf), both in that paragraph and in a chart (attached below), as the mode shape at that frequency is TM212, and not TM211, even according to their COMSOL analysis the TM211 resonates at a significant lower natural frequency than TM212 which resonates at 1.9 GHz with the HDPE insert.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152925;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1160401;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
-
FYI: Antenna Basics
http://www.techbriefs.com/dl/2016.php?i=22370&eid=324667516&bid=1568187&d=1
-
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152925;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
These readings support my electron sequence capture of light energy theory ( see here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1603439#msg1603439) ). The electrons at the big end are low energy enough that they are able to hand over KE to the plate, hence a drop in E field. While at the small end they are too high energy, and just bounce off the plate, retaining all their energy.
This asymmetry in electron to plate transfer of energy gives thrust.
-
...
NASA found best results with PTFE and HDPE dielectrics at the small end, which increases tan delta (dissipation) at the small end, hence lower Qs at the small end
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
But this would argue for materials having much larger dissipation losses than HDPE or PTFE be better ?
I thought that they tried materials with more dissipation and they found worse results, not better. But have to check...to be sure
Also this prescription runs contrary to Shawyer, who maintains that it is better not to use any dielectrics (which were involved in his initial patents) because they decrease Q at one end and he thinks that's bad...
I am working my way through this data. I will let you all know what I find out.
The equation above can be viewed in two ways. Qb is very small, or Qs is very large. The acceleration "g" depends on the log of this ratio. There are a lot of ways to get the same ratio, so we need to remember the other half of the thrust equation is the equivalent "mass" of the stored energy, and m ~ Q.
T = -m*g ~ -P/v, with 1/v as above.
Like gravity, we only need a relatively small gradient in the potential to get a decent acceleration. Ideally, we want a small acceleration and a large mass, so higher Qs will dominate if we want to move larger masses.
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation...
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation...
I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
-
There are easier ways to test this "thrust caused by dissipation" theorem using defined µW absorber materials.
The problem is that the resonance brake down by even using only small pieces of it inside a cavity. (Q0 will be very low due to the dissipation at one end).
Regarding WarpTech's theory (if it works as predicted) this would generate much more thrust.
https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=microwave+absorber
###We discussed a similar solution in the past using ferrite inserts.###
-
FYI: Note the resemblance of interferometers to resonant cavities...
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/a-primer-on-gravitational-wave-detectors
-
...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis.
-
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing:
Depends. If the electron density in the cavity is high, then they can support a steeper electric field gradient, then its ok to have higher dissipation. Sounds like Shawyer's cavity has low electron density, so he needs low dissipation end plates.
Are there any good thrusts with medium to high dissipation plates?
I note a lack of discussion of cavity gas. Different gases at different pressures may support different electron densities and alter electric field gradients.
-
...I note a lack of discussion of cavity gas. Different gases at different pressures may support different electron densities and alter electric field gradients.
They were discussed in previous threads. I pointed out that early Masers were using Ammonia that emits at 24 GHz and this is the same frequency of operation as the Baby EM Drive of Aachen. More than a year after that nobody has tried different gases in EM Drives to my knowledge, particularly the Aachen group, who was testing at this 24 GHz frequency just with air inside the cavity.
-
FYI: Note the resemblance of interferometers to resonant cavities...
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/a-primer-on-gravitational-wave-detectors
And ever since they announced some preliminary data and testing of the White–Juday warp-field interferometer it has went quiet. I would love to hear more and as I'm sure many would as well.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/2015_NASA-JSC_Eagleworks_Warp-field_Interferometer_Test_Set_Up.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Interferometer_experiment_with_an_EmDrive
Best....
Shell
-
...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis.
My recollection (I could be wrong) is that when NASA used the much more lossy Neoprene rubber in the EW copper truncated cone in place of the HDPE or PTFE dielectric discs the TM212 resonance collapsed and they could not see a thing in regards to force generation.
The peak E-fields in the truncated cone have to-be above a certain minimum value, or these thrusters just don’t work.
(I suppose one could just crank up the power past the nominal 30W NASA had available at the time to get the required minimum E-field levels, but that was not an option at the time, - circa 2014-, but even if you would do that it does not appear to me that that would lead to a superior figure of merit, which is force/InputPower )
Much more impressive to me would be for NASA to pursue TE012 with HDPE because they were able to obtain 55 microNewton forces with only 2.6 watts with that mode shape.
Also NASA obtained the highest Q with that mode shape TE012 (instead of the lower Q with TM212).
....nope, the EM Drive data is indeed confusive... but if there is a common thread that emerges from Shawyer+NASA+Yang+Tajmar is that the higher Q the better and that TE modes are better than TM modes, and therefore one wants low dissipation, instead of high dissipation...
-
...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis.
My recollection (I could be wrong) is that when NASA used the much more lossy Neoprene rubber in the EW copper truncated cone in place of the HDPE or PTFE dielectric discs the TM212 resonance collapsed and they could not see a thing in regards to force generation.
The peak E-fields in the truncated cone have to-be above a certain minimum value, or these thrusters just don’t work.
(I suppose one could just crank up the power past the nominal 30W NASA had available at the time to get the required minimum E-field levels, but that was not an option at the time, - circa 2014-, but even if you would do that it does not appear to me that that would lead to a superior figure of merit, which is force/InputPower )
Much more impressive to me would be for NASA to pursue TE012 with HDPE because they were able to obtain forces with only 2 watts with that mode shape
One difference is that these different dielectrics with different numbers that some are comprised of chiral molecular chains ... Dr. Rodal, want to comment?
Shell
simple correction...
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
-
...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
Well, that is a conceptual discussion. It remains to show numerically what magnitude of actual physical properties like tan delta will be required for your theory to show overdamping. At the moment there is no way to tell. There are many possibilities: perhaps your theory will not show overdamping even with Neoprene. Perhaps your theory will show overdamping for any polymer, with HDPE, PTFE and Neoprene, all of them. No way to tell until there is a numerical formula to calculate thrust based on actual material properties...
The theory is not yet as mature as McCulloch's, Shawyer's and Notsosureofit, who have actual design formulas to calculate thrust based on actual physical parameters. Your theory may turn out to be the real thing, or it may turn out to be identical to one or more of them...
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show :) (interesting to watch ;) )
Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth.
-
...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
Well, that is a conceptual discussion. It remains to show numerically what magnitude of actual physical properties like tan delta will be required for your theory to show overdamping. At the moment there is no way to tell. There are many possibilities: perhaps your theory will not show overdamping even with Neoprene. Perhaps your theory will show overdamping for any polymer, with HDPE, PTFE and Neoprene, all of them. No way to tell until there is a numerical formula to calculate thrust based on actual material properties...
The theory is not yet as mature as McCulloch's, Shawyer's and Notsosureofit, who have actual design formulas to calculate thrust based on actual physical parameters. Your theory may turn out to be the real thing, or it may turn out to be identical to one or more of them...
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show :) (interesting to watch ;) )
Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth.
Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think.
The fact that adding the PE disk to the small end nullified the thrust, would imply that the asymmetry in dissipation of the empty frustum alone is on the same order of magnitude as the PE disk.
The overdamping condition may simply be due to not enough driving power. Neoprene might work well if the input source were driving it at 1000W, or 10,000W. I agree and I wish I had the know how to do material science and make predictions based on this. I think the only way to really test it would be to drive up the input power until we have the same amount of stored energy in the cavity, (the same mass) for each different dissipation factor or dielectric insert. Otherwise, both halves of my equation are varying. We need to keep mass constant or acceleration constant, to determine the behavior of each, per my equations and that's not easy.
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
-
Since there are new members asking questions about the EM Drive, this may be a good time to reproduce again Notsosureofit's immortal poem about the EM Drive:
A FABLE FOR SOME OTHER TIME
Chapter 1.
(http://www.bureauofbetterment.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pioneer-rabbit-outer-space.jpg)
In a quiet inertial frame between galaxies far, far away, Turtle and Rabbit (T&R Space Movers, LLC)
were floating in their space transport, "Firebug", a refurbished shipping container carrying recycled
bricks from the remains of (the now sunken) New York City.
Rabbit said, "Turtle, I want to to aim my Hubble telescope (bought cheap at the NASA bankrupcy
auction) at that pretty star over there. What say I throw some bricks from one corner of the
ship to get this thing rotating into position."
"Not so fast", said Turtle. (her favorite expression) "If you do that, you'll have to throw more
bricks in the opposite direction when you want it to stop. Besides, I don't want you to
throwing our cargo overboard whenever you feel like it."
"Then how else can I point my telescope ?" said Rabbit.
"Well, I have this little gadget...." said Turtle.
"That's your antique disk drive" said Rabbit, "How is that supposed to help me turn the ship?"
Turtle settled in for a bit, "I can use this thing to store energy in a spinning disk. It
doesn't lose very much and I can always input a certain amount of power to overcome those losses
and maintain a given angular frequency and by extension, a given angular momentum."
"Huh ?" said Rabbit, "I'm an oscillator guy, myself. You know, back and forth, fast!"
"Ok, ok" said Turtle, "Think of the atoms in the spinning disk as undergoing oscillation in each
of two dimensions, x and y, at the same frequency and 90 degrees apart in phase. Forget about z
and t for the moment."
Rabbit thinks for a moment and says, "Mmmm, well I guess the energy stored would be proportional to the amount
of power you have to be putting in times the Q of the oscillator."
"Right!" said Turtle, " And the amount of stored energy determines the rate at which the ship
will rotate in the opposite direction to the disk. When you stop the disk, you stop the ship.
You've changed your frame of reference to the "fixed" stars, all due to the Conservation of
Angular Momentum."
"Oh goody!" says Rabbit, "Now I can get a good look at that star."
Chapter 2.
Bye n' bye, as Turtle was trying to listen to her favorite recording, "A Window in Time", (Sergei
Rachmaninoff performs his solo piano works)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hv2zh_Z0Io
she could not help but notice that Rabbit was
becoming increasingly frustrated over at his telescope.
"What seems to be the matter this time?", she asked.
"It's this star! It's too red! I really didn't want to ask, but can I throw some bricks out
the back and shorten those stellar wavelengths a bit?"
Turtle hated to repeat herself, "No! We've been over this. I don't want you wasting our bricks!"
"But I really want to be able to see more of that star." said Rabbit, "Isn't there anything else
I could do ?"
"Well, I have this little gadget...." said Turtle.
"Oh no, not this time." said Rabbit, "Your little trick with the disk worked to rotate the ship,
and frustratingly slow at that, but I need to make it move! You know, the whole displacement,
velocity, acceleration bit."
"Calm down." said Turtle, "It really isn't that much different. You already know that
acceleration is just a rotation that includes t as one of the two axes."
"But, but ...." stammered Rabbit.
"And, you already know that if we make an oscillator in those two dimensions we can store an
amount of energy proportional to power times Q."
"Yeah, but ...." continued Rabbit.
"And, you already know that the ship will continue to accelerate as long as we maintain that
stored energy in the oscillator." said Turtle.
"Now just a carrot pickin' minute here." said Rabbit, "That's just an old tin flowerpot from the
trash, a fryin' pan lid and parts from the cooker in the galley! It doesn't even have a disk!"
Turtle smiled, "We don't need the disk. We can use the standing electro-magnetic waves and the
charged particles in the walls as the pair of oscillators for the two axes."
"How's that again ?" said Rabbit "Don't we need that 90 degree phase shift as well?"
"Why do you think that's a flower pot rather than one of those big cans of veggies you're so
fond of ? The electrons and photons are doing a little dance together, so all we need to do is
get them a bit behind or ahead. We don't have to have exactly 90 degrees, but that would be
best"
"You really believe this will work ?" said Rabbit.
"I think it will." said Turtle, putting on her best smile, "but I'm not so sure of it."
(http://img11.deviantart.net/5e29/i/2008/051/b/f/space_turtle_by_deichjensen.jpg)
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
Perhaps mode frequency is a key parameter. Will test this out next year. Displacement forces died out when my magnetron failed to approach resonance. U might want to keep this option open just in case...
-
...
Todd
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show :) (interesting to watch ;) )
What drives human achievement? The dreams of something better. Dreams are what we're made of, dreams are what define us, what enable us to take that extra step, that illogical or logical leap in intuition that just might work. I'll never chide someone for dreaming. I applaud.
My old Electronics teacher told me; "Michelle, we are entering into a golden age of mediocre conformity, never find yourself there". After nearly 50 years his words still ring truer than ever.
Shell
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
Perhaps mode frequency is a key parameter. Will test this out next year. Displacement forces died out when my magnetron failed to approach resonance. U might want to keep this option open just in case...
Good point Dave. Here are the equations of my theory with both the frequency and the decay time, expressed as variables of the "r" coordinate, distance from the apex of the cone. Hopefully (@meems) the connection to gravity is apparent now? It didn't really change the result, except the factor of 1/2 is gone now. I don't see where I made an error, but hopefully, at most it's a factor of 2. :)
Todd
Edit 2: Note, space-time metric line element ONLY applies inside the frustum. :)
Edit: Heck, why not write out a conformally flat space-time metric line element in terms of Q for the EM Drive, now that I have K in terms of Q...
"Welcome to The Q Continuum!"
-
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
So what is missing for the Mach Effect in the EM Drive is a force acting at omega. Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
That's not too difficult to arrange with a statically charged dielectric. Insert a low-loss (so as not to lower the Q) dielectric with surface electrodes and apply a DC voltage there. In a precharged (nonzero static electrostriction) dielectric the electrostrictive strain from the AC component will transition from 2*omega to 1*omega.
If the DC voltage component can reach the AC peak levels, the 2*omega electrostrictive term will disappear completely and fully convert into an 1*omega term instead.
Please note that (given the AC field strength in a high-Q cavity) full conversion would require the application of a seriously high DC charging voltage (!!! SAFETY !!!).
-
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
So what is missing for the Mach Effect in the EM Drive is a force acting at omega. Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
That's not too difficult to arrange with a statically charged dielectric. Insert a low-loss (so as not to lower the Q) dielectric with surface electrodes and apply a DC voltage there. In a precharged (nonzero static electrostriction) dielectric the electrostrictive strain from the AC component will transition from 2*omega to 1*omega. If the DC voltage component can reach the AC peak levels, the 2*omega electrostrictive term will disappear completely and fully convert into an 1*omega term instead.
P.S. This 2*omega to 1*omega conversion effect can also happen unintentionally (to a smaller degree) if the dielectric gets charged by random stray electrons from gas ionization inside the cavity or if the dielectric happens to be inherently polarized.
It can be made explicit and in a larger magnitude by DC-precharging the dielectric explicitly through a charge electrode on the dielectric surface.
-
>Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
>In the Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, [1] gravity results from a loss of power in a quantum oscillator, caused by a gradient in the relative Damping Factor. This paper demonstrates that the EM Drive theory of operation, may be analogous to a man-made gravitational field gradient, inside the frustm.
Ok I see now why I couldn't understand Rodal's and Warp's exchanges.
> invents wild new theory of gravity
> assert that an unknown phenomena is due to creating its own gravity via this new theory of gravity, even though by conventional theory it has nothing to do with gravity
So not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
As a new member to the forum I have to balance being nice vs stating the truth as I see it : So far I've been nice, but now I have to say this :
WarpTech's approach to explaining emdrive is profoundly unprincipled. Mixing 2 completely unrelated unexplained parts of physics : emdrive thrust , and gravity ; and trying to explain them both at the same time just stinks of the unholy culture of string theory, super string theory and m-theory - that is : trying to explain everything in one go ; all now widely excepted to have been an absolute waste of time.
Its a grab all and explain all attempt in an effort to be a super-Einstein, to create a universal theory, and is diametrically opposed to a sensible scientific protocol : divide and conquer \ try to avoid tangling things up.
Cooking up mad theories that hoover up unrelated phenomena and try to explain them all at the same time in a vain attempt to be a superstar has been a plague in the theoretical physics community, holding it back since WW2.
I'm aware of internet forum culture that has grown in the last 15 year. That is : if you have lots of posts then you are a PhD and very wise, but if you have only a dozen posts, you are considered a teenager at school. In fact I'm old, have a BSc in physics and have maintained an interest in physics all my life.
Board admins should allow a degree of liberty for members to discuss a new theory, but mixing gravity and emdrive into a mad theory should trigger a red-card by any standard. That it doesn't is just indicative of the NASA \ string theory culture of allowing mad theory to flourish around any and every unexplained physics. Its almost like the contrary is true : you'll get banned or ignored if you DON'T put forward a mad theory. If I was board admin I would not allow such mad theories here.
bah. I hope Rodal's theory isn't as mad as Warp's.
Let's have it Rodal.
-
>Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
>In the Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, [1] gravity results from a loss of power in a quantum oscillator, caused by a gradient in the relative Damping Factor. This paper demonstrates that the EM Drive theory of operation, may be analogous to a man-made gravitational field gradient, inside the frustm.
Ok I see now why I couldn't understand Rodal's and Warp's exchanges.
> invents wild new theory of gravity
> assert that an unknown phenomena is due to creating its own gravity via this new theory of gravity, even though by conventional theory it has nothing to do with gravity
So not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
As a new member to the forum I have to balance being nice vs stating the truth as I see it : So far I've been nice, but now I have to say this :
WarpTech's approach to explaining emdrive is profoundly unprincipled. Mixing 2 completely unrelated unexplained parts of physics : emdrive thrust , and gravity ; and trying to explain them both at the same time just stinks of the unholy culture of string theory, super string theory and m-theory - that is : trying to explain everything in one go ; all now widely excepted to have been an absolute waste of time.
Its a grab all and explain all attempt in an effort to be a super-Einstein, to create a universal theory, and is diametrically opposed to a sensible scientific protocol : divide and conquer \ try to avoid tangling things up.
Cooking up mad theories that hoover up unrelated phenomena and try to explain them all at the same time in a vain attempt to be a superstar has been a plague in the theoretical physics community, holding it back since WW2.
I'm aware of internet forum culture that has grown in the last 15 year. That is : if you have lots of posts then you are a PhD and very wise, but if you have only a dozen posts, you are considered a teenager at school. In fact I'm old, have a BSc in physics and have maintained an interest in physics all my life.
Board admins should allow a degree of liberty for members to discuss a new theory, but mixing gravity and emdrive into a mad theory should trigger a red-card by any standard. That it doesn't is just indicative of the NASA \ string theory culture of allowing mad theory to flourish around any and every unexplained physics. Its almost like the contrary is true : you'll get banned or ignored if you DON'T put forward a mad theory. If I was board admin I would not allow such mad theories here.
bah. I hope Rodal's theory isn't as mad as Warp's.
Let's have it Rodal.
So... thanks again, Chris Bergins, for making these discussions possible. :)
I don't have a general understanding of Todd's theory, that is Why I did not comment it for now, but I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
The gravity, among the fundamental interactions, allows interactions at the larger distances. As it was mentionned several times, there is already a propellantless way of accelerating a ship, actually used, : Gravity assist. That is why thinking about gravity is not unlogical.
MiHsC is also about gravity
When trying to explain the Emdrive effect, thinking about gravity doesn't seem mad.
Also, the madness of a theory needs a constructive work to be evaluated. Hours of reflexion about the implications. It can not be quickly decided by an admin if a theory is mad :P or not.
So not only are you trying to explain an unexplained thrust phenomena, you've also trying to explain gravity, which has never been explained despite millions of man hours spent on it over hundreds of years.
Shame that for the last 200 years, scientists didn't approach every new phenomena like this. /sarc
They did not have any experiment about the emdrive. New experiments give new ideas. That does not means that Todd pretends to be more clever than the scientists of the 200 last years. He just try to make a theory that fits with new observations. That is not a shame if the scientist that did not have these observations did not make fitting theories.
Otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that on these threads, many of us are mad scientists.
Mad theorists, and mad experimenters.
Mouhahahaha. ;D
P.S. Stay safe.
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
not always. For a counter example i give you this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110591-physics-tweak-solves-five-of-the-biggest-problems-in-one-go/
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
Gravity came into play because Roger Shawyer once said his test apparatus needed an initial acceleration to generate thrust (But I think what happened was he overcame static friction (yes there is static friction in air bearing)). Then people realized that acceleration could not be differentiated from gravity according to general relativity. Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive. That is the observation I made to this matter. Hope it helps.
-
Here's some theory I think is central to emdrive :
Why doesn't a 100 Watt light torch give a reaction force ( kick back ) similar to a mechanical device with a power of 100 Watts?
An Excellent observation! You think like an engineer ;)
An example of mechanical 100 Watt thruster is : A man throwing 2kg mass projectiles...accelerate the man in the opposite direction...
But the kickback from 100 W light torch would be effectively zero by comparison.
Let's think about it this way; you've got a spring with a kilo-joule of energy, you weigh 100kg, you stand on it (using earth as a ballast) and let'r go, and spring-up 1 meter (hope I the math's right). Virtually all the 1kg of energy you absorb, first accelerating to a velocity then attaining a higher gravitational potential with the 1kj of energy.
Now you're in space, you push against a similar 100kg mass as yourself with the 1kj spring, accelerating to (1/2 of 2*sqrt 20 ) m/s, the momentum divided evenly between yourself and the ballast mass.
If you use a very small ballast mass, say from a bullet in a pistol, the bullet flies away with almost all the KE (kinetic energy) and you get only a little of it.
But wait! Now you use a rifle, with a very long, long barrel, such that the recoil accelerates you a long, long time, rather than the short time from the pistol. Since you are recoiling backwards with respect to the bullet, it exits (from an observes rest frame relative to your initial state) at a lower velocity. You absorb more KE, attaining a higher velocity.
Thus, perhaps clever hacks can give us thrust higher than a photon rocket.
..only a tiny fraction of the energy in light is as mechanical energy \ momentum. Most of it is stored in a EM wave which is lateral to its motion. In other words, a photon is like a thrown grenade, its kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to its stored potential energy.
EM waves are not like "grenades". Both the EM fields and momentum are consequences of their unity of identity as a photon.
...a light torch does not give a significant kickback, and why an object being exposed to a light doesn't experience a significant kickback. Energy conversion between mechanical and light energy is lateral to the direction of travel of the light.
When an atom emits a photon, or an antenna a pulse of EM, there is a recoil. But think of the pistol and rifle. The momentum transfer depends on refractive index and geometry, as well as mass of the emitter, and the greater the doppler/red-shift of the photon relative to the emitter, the greater the recoil velocity and propulsive efficiency.
It would be interesting to do an EM sim of an accelerating horn-antenna (a very, very, very long antenna) and find out how much efficiency you can get from a mere "photon rocket".
...
Well that's the end of this line of thought. Its not specific to emdrive. Its just a theory on how to convert light into motion, without using a propellent. It maybe that emdrive is somehow using this theory.
Indeed. I recommend studying waveguides, resonant cavities, with an eye towards understanding how a high-Q standing wave is like effective mass, how the group velocity in a slow-traveling standing-wave carries this effective mass with higher propulsive efficiency. How dispersion multiplies doppler shift, enabling the extraction of more energy.
Then Brillouin scattering; if the cavity is being vibrated, more energy can be extracted due to increased doppler shift.
Interesting how Shawyer's designs use dispersion and are mounted on springs, and he uses actuators, which may be doing more than merely tuning the cavity.
Dissipation is necessary to get rid of the lower sideband; it's the exhaust (because the EM drive is a thermally open-system). Without dissipation, the slow-wave and effective mass with just slosh back & forth.
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
If I remember correctly Todd is a fine engineer and a VP of a very large company.
As an engineer you can look to the old hack of solving by the divide and conquer method, which works almost all the time... but not all. Why would I know this? 50 years of engineering, a couple dozen patents and president/CEO of 4 different and successful businesses. Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Tools come in many different sizes and some people are simply ambidextrous and can look at more than one problem at a time. As a matter of fact some of the finest engineers and even physicists I've known can look at a multi-leveled problem and not only keep all the parts separate to solve but see the interconnections between them to solve the larger problem. I'll say this is a fine gift to have.
This Drive is not a single problem to solve, it consists of hundreds of individual "problems" to solve and you must be able to look at the whole picture all at once and this includes the theories as well.
Shell
-
...
I think this problem does have an all mechanical anology : converting the energy of bullets into slow coherent motion; this may give us insight into emdrive...
Yet there is a big difference - the speed of light is always C. Relativity.
... The problem of collisions at high energy momentum ratio
...
Dough Boulder
One simple improvement it to make the boulder soft, like dough. This way, at least the bullet's energy isn't used to particlize and scatter the bullet or the boulder. The bullet decelerates slowly and comes to rest intact.
The long barrel, the horn antenna or dispersive waveguide
...A slightly different, more hypothetical and fanciful idea would be to have the bullet collide sequentially with gradually slower moving small objects.
A thought I've had is using coupled resonators in a Chebyshev configuration; maximum ripple/group delay and dispersion.
...Converting this analogy over to emdrive : step 2/2
So can something like this be happening in the emdrive cavity? Yes.
Starting with lightwaves ( the bullets ), we need to have something that will act as the set of sequentially slower moving objects. There is only one object that can be : electrons - yes a cavity full of microwaves with conductor walls will have a few loose electrons in it- electron plasma. Starting at one end of the cavity, light is passing its energy quite efficiently onto fast high energy electrons, which pass on kinetic energy to low energy electrons, until the lowest energy electrons pass on KE to one of the end plates, which absorbs the energy more efficiently as KE than if it was just being hit with the unaltered light ( initial high speed bullets ).
Lab experimenters may want to look for a gradient in electron energy within the cavity.
How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
-
> I do not see why it would be particulary mad to mix gravity and Emdrive.
If I'm the only one on this forum that sees its mad, then I wouldn't be surprised. There is a culture for it, and within that culture, it is acceptable rather than seen as mad.
If WarpTech was to expand his theory to include a few dozen other unexplained phenomena in other fields of science, it would be seen as a good thing in this community.
If you'd done any engineering then your divide an conquer principles would prevent you from trying to solve 2 unexplained problems at once. Only when both problems are mastered, can consideration be given to integrating the 2 theories. This has always been the way in science and engineering, and always will be. And I repeat, trying to go from a list of unexplained unrelated phenoma to a generalized theory in one step has always resulted in failure... But the lure of being the worlds 1st super-Einstein overcomes any and all rationality... so we are stuck with 1000s of theorists trying to do 2 steps in one, and failing, while everyone else applauds them.
Except me.
not always. For a counter example i give you this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110591-physics-tweak-solves-five-of-the-biggest-problems-in-one-go/
Interesting: that would give a max photon coupling between 12 to 48GHz to an axion mass of 50 to 200 micro-eV.
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
-
> invents wild new theory of gravity
Chill and be nice please. You may actually learn a few things. I've learned an lot from folks while I roll my eyes and chuckle, and with some, cry because they make immense, laudable efforts in vain. But I'm often wrong about many things too, so I'm polite. Most of the time.
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you.
-
What happens when I place my hand behind the large end of a super conducting EmDrive when it's turned on? Will I feel a force? If so, in which direction?
Has anybody seen Wal Thornhill's presentation on gravity in which he proposes that gravity is caused by the small internal deformation of the atoms in a gravitational field making them tiny dipoles? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU)
Wild idea: Could it be that the microwaves are deforming the copper atoms on the larger plate such that they are forming tiny dipoles where the negative side is pointing out and the positive side is pointing in the chamber?
If this were true then I should feel an attractive force when I place my hand behind a fixed super-conducting EmDrive that's turned on because the atoms in my hand along with the air molecules would synchronize with the induced dipoles of the chamber.
-
...
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
Please. I like you're reasoning. If you offend believers, you'll cause trouble and get censored and perhaps leave in a huff as others have. But feel free to message me, and we'll share some laughs. ;D
When my email works again, that is, its broke now :(
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
We have been smashing, splitting and dividing things for longer than I can remember.
(http://i.imgur.com/l4ESeS4.jpg)
It is our nature to do so. We've gotten better at it although it's still breaking them up to see what makes them work.
(https://marcozonka.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/20110822cms.jpg)
I'm sure as our ancestors smashed up bit of rocks to understand how they worked and mashed fingers in the doing so. They eventually made fire and were able to slice up and cook the steaks they just made from the bison they slayed. It wasn't a single problem in just getting a sharp rock it was a whole list of linked problems to feed that hungry tummy.
One thing at a time? Ha! You're not old enough to remember smashed fingers are you?
Best,
Shell
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
Known physics has been given its due diligence. If EM Drive works, it is because of new physics, full stop. The accepted body of known physics cannot explain it.
I sincerely hope no one listens to any statement that they should stop thinking about their theories on the grounds of their new ideas being an affront to the established order of physics, rather than on their individual merits.
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
1) Please properly and mathematically address Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy arguments.
Any theory that considers the EM Drive experimental clams must address these conservation principles.
2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
Gravitation is one of the few external fields that can penetrate the closed copper cavity, and escape the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments. Thus it is natural, and not surprising that would enter physical justifications for EM Drive experimental claims, for people seriously considering, and not ignoring, conservation principles.
3) As an example, that the size of G may be a non-sequitur, Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation leads to an expression for Mach effect inertial effects where G appears in the denominator, rather than the numerator. This turns your qualitative argument about the size of G, literally upside down. Also see Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation as posited by StrongGR.
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
No, you are not alone. I selectively read posts I am interested in, mostly posts about experiments. My highest physics education is at 2nd year college level in a physics department. I ignore all posts that have terminology beyond that level. [update] I also ignore theoretical posts that are within my ability and I think are wrong.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you.
-
Please. I like you're reasoning. If you offend believers, you'll cause trouble and get censored and perhaps leave in a huff as others have. But feel free to message me, and we'll share some laughs. ;D
When my email works again, that is, its broke now :(
Sure mwvp, I hope we can have some fruitful exchanges, from what I've red so far, we might be the leading theorists on this forum. So lets keep up the discussion. Can you point me to your own theory?
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated. I'm starting from Dicke's Polarizable Vacuum Lagrangian Density, from 1957. This model has been in the development since then, and I've been working on it for over 30 years. It's not something I just cooked up for the EM Drive. It has been an evolving work for decades, and not just by me.
See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583932#msg1583932 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583932#msg1583932)
for a list of references, not all mine. I'm not trying to replace GR, I'm only trying to show how we can mimic the same effects within the frustum using EM, and the equations I wrote do exactly that. Similarly is how Buckingham Pi theory works, and that is how engineering is done from scratch with nothing else to go by.
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
Cavity electron-plasma? I'll assume you refer to the (Fermi-gas?) currents induced in a metallic waveguide. An incident EM wave induces an opposing current in the electron plasma of the waveguide (Lenz' law? Biot-Savart? Lorentz force? I forget) hence, radiation pressure.
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
The heat is from copper-losses, I^2 R loss, due to the induced currents. When I talk microwaves, I talk current and fields.
-
...
1) Please properly and mathematically address...
Put-up or shut-up? Maybe I'll get around to it, and then you'll be sorry :-\
...2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
The cavity isn't closed. Heat is escaping, and the losses can be frequency selective, filtering the lower sideband, resulting in imbalance under acceleration.
When has any sort of dynamic analysis of an accelerated frustrum been done? How about just an accelerating horn antenna radiation pressure?
Gravitation is one of the few external fields that can penetrate the closed copper cavity, and escape the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments. Thus it is natural, and not surprising that would enter physical justifications for EM Drive experimental claims, for people seriously considering, and not ignoring, conservation principles.
3) As an example, that the size of G may be a non-sequitur, Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation leads to an expression for Mach effect inertial effects where G appears in the denominator, rather than the numerator. This turns your qualitative argument about the size of G, literally upside down. Also see Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation as posited by StrongGR.
If so, I will stand corrected, shocked and amazed, and pleased for the possibilities now afforded us ;D
-
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated. I'm starting from Dicke's Polarizable Vacuum Lagrangian Density, from 1957. This model has been in the development since then, and I've been working on it for over 30 years. It's not something I just cooked up for the EM Drive. It has been an evolving work for decades, and not just by me.
Probably should point out that the constant speed of light, c, and the electrical impedance of the vacuum (check this rfmguy 377 ohms ?) have only been extrapolated down to wavelengths of the order of the Plank length. The speed of gravitational radiation has only been qualitatively measured at the very longest wavelengths. (I leave the implications to the reader)
-
...Sure mwvp, I hope we can have some fruitful exchanges, from what I've red so far, we might be the leading theorists on this forum. So lets keep up the discussion. Can you point me to your own theory?
Times running short now, but I've posted it in months past. You'll find it by searching on my name and a phrase like "negative inertial resistance", dissipative, dispersive. I've got lots of interesting references I've collected, many from very clever folks here. Such as:
arxiv 1005.5467 about dispersion, and "cavity optomechanics" that describes laser doppler cooling, and most significantly, instability. More later...
-
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you.
“I ask not for any crown
But that which all may win;
Nor try to conquer any world
Except the one within.”
― Louisa May Alcott...
I have this printed out and hanging on my wall.
Shell
-
...
...2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
The cavity isn't closed. Heat is escaping, and the losses can be frequency selective, filtering the lower sideband, resulting in imbalance under acceleration.
...
This thread is about << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>> so let's consider the proposed EM Drive in the partial vacuum of space. Then it can be shown that the heat escapes as thermal radiation. And one can readily shown that such propulsion (by heat radiation) is much less effective than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
But the experimental claims of EM Drive experimenters is that the force/InputPower is orders of magnitude greater than that of a perfectly collimated photon-rocket.
...
When has any sort of dynamic analysis of an accelerated frustrum been done? How about just an accelerating horn antenna radiation pressure?
...
It can be shown that the dynamic magnification factor can be a factor of 2 for transient problems.
That is a long way away from addressing the experimental claims of EM Drive experimenters of several orders of magnitude greater force/InputPower than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
-
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated.
Agreed, its just the magnitude I've got a hard time accepting. Until I recently read Macken's "Only Spacetime", I wouldn't have understood what you meant by our rulers shrinking to account for the apparent Hubble expansion. Dark energy? Really? I try to keep an open mind without my brains falling out.
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
There are dozens of counter examples. I think that you confound pure enginering problems, and "new physics" problems.
In most of enginering problems, the laws of physics are not in question. Designing a 3 million spares Saturn V meant thousands or millions of enginering problems (bigs or smalls) that were resoluted. Here the approach divide and conquer is perfect.
But, when you get an experiment that violates the standard laws of physics, you have to look together the laws and the experiment. It is not about only enginering, it is about new physics and non standard enginering.
In fact, at the contrary of what you are saying, the progress of the knowledge of physical laws, were very often with several different experiments.
For example, the Copernicus revolution. It was not about just one phenomenon. It was about the movements of all knowns planets. And these movements were different for each one. the internal planets were obeying different rules than external planets. The copernicus theory, with only one rule, explained all these movements. It was not more precise than the epicycles. In fact, using circles, it was less precise, but it explained all movements by the same law.
Later, came Newton. With the law of gravity, he explained at the same time the movement of the planets around the sun, and the apple falling of the tree, that were considered like two totally different phenomenons before.
When the periodical classification of elements was made, it was also taking into account dozens of different atoms at the same time. If each atom had been considered like a separated problem, how would have been possible an atomic theory ?
In 1844, William Robert Grove postulated a relationship between mechanics, heat, light, electricity and magnetism by treating them all as manifestations of a single "force" (energy in modern terms)
Here also, very different phenomenons, linked together by a new theory !
Later, The famous E=MC^2 linked mass, and energy, that were precedently considered like separated, explaining at the same time very different things.
And in General Relativity, time, gravity, and the metric are linked ! All things that were considered like different a century ago.
So, at the opposite of what you say, explaining different things with one theory is a good thing in theoretical approach. And once the new theory is validated, it help engineers to do the work. Of course, bridges could be constructed before that gravity was discovered, and before strength of materials was theorized, but it helps to construct lighther and bigger bridges.
Emdrive is not only an enginering problem, it is a new physics problem. You can not solve a new physics problem without speaking of physical laws. It is logically impossible. We are not speaking of building a new bridge, we are speaking of a device that violates standard physics. Any attempt to explain how the emdrive works needs at least a new law or a modified law. One experiment, one law. It is the minimum here. If you don't like the idea of modifying gravity, what physical law would you modify ?
Once again, I have no personal opinion about the precise Todd Theory, what is still in the earlier stages of developpement, but IMHO gravity is a good candidate.
-
Nice video of the Flight Thruster which shows the "Tuning Port":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k&feature=youtu.be&t=553
Seems to be very light, so it is probably Aluminum based.
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna.
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna.
There certainly were birds up there in the past, but used for atmospheric to near orbit measurements.
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
-
arxiv 1005.5467 about dispersion, and "cavity optomechanics" that describes laser doppler cooling, and most significantly, instability.
An excellent reference, particularly chapter 6 in reference to Todd's work.
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
EmWave cavity energy is based on Q * power. What you suggested is just power as no resonance to build Q. So would probably work but at very low efficiency.
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
Because it's not the shape that does it. It's the "relative" amount of energy that is stored there. The Q at the small end is higher than the Q at the big end, "equivalent to" there being a higher refractive index, "K", such that c/Kb < c/Ks < c
where b is "big end" and s is "small end".
So sending one photon at a time down a tapered wave guide isn't going to do it. Having a resonant cavity that concentrates stored energy asymmetrically will.
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna.
AFAIW he was working on an issue having to do with sat station keeping. I suspect there was a dielectric in the waveguide and that sparked the "Light Bulb" moment as all his early work was dielectric focused.
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna.
AFAIW he was working on an issue having to do with sat station keeping. I suspect there was a dielectric in the waveguide and that sparked the "Light Bulb" moment as all his early work was dielectric focused.
Yes, that's interesting, as Shawyer's first patent for the EM Drive featured a cylindrical cavity (the typical shape of microwave cavities in spacecraft) with a dielectric asymmetrically placed in the cavity. They did not deal with a truncated conical cavity. So it seems like his initial idea when he left Matra Marconi was to produce an asymmetry with a dielectric and not geometrically. His truncated conical cavity patents came out many years later, long after he had left Matra Marconi and was already on his own.
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
Because it's not the shape that does it. It's the "relative" amount of energy that is stored there. The Q at the small end is higher than the Q at the big end, "equivalent to" there being a higher refractive index, "K", such that c/Kb < c/Ks < c
where b is "big end" and s is "small end".
So sending one photon at a time down a tapered wave guide isn't going to do it. Having a resonant cavity that concentrates stored energy asymmetrically will.
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
There is a momentum gradient created due to the taper. Putting on end plates allows the internal energy to be Q * Power instead of just Power.
What happens at the small end is the EmWave momentum is reduced and that causes the lower radiation pressure at the small end.
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
I follow the data. Theory be damned. TWO equal but opposite forces are generated and have been measured.
What Roger's theory suggests, matches what I and others have seen and measured.
It is just a jump to the LEFT and a step to the RIGHT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkplPbd2f60
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852) before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
I follow the data. Theory be damned. TWO equal but opposite forces are generated and have been measured.
What Roger's theory suggests, matches what I and others have seen and measured.
It is just a jump to the LEFT and a step to the RIGHT:
...
Equal and opposite would imply using the same EMDrive shape driven with the same input and mode shape in different experiments and seeing the force, but in the opposite direction. I do not remember ever seeing such data including from Shawyer. I also don't know of anyone who has measured small to big motion except Shawyer, or people have determined this was an experimental error.
If you ever answered the 2 simple questions I asked, I could explain why Shawyer's theory does not predict the forces the way you claim. There is no point in my further description of why it doesn't make sense if you won't answer my questions.
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
I reiterate - The tests done in "vacuum" were not even close to theoretical vacuum. Best we can do, but simple calculations show air particle count on the order of 10^+14 particles at the tested level of vacuum hardness. That is 1. followed by 15 zeros. Compare that to O(10^+23) particles at atmospheric pressure. If the particles within the frustum are involved in the "thrust" generation then the most we can say is, "Fewer particles, lower thrust." And if they are involved then perfectly sealed, rigid frustums are well within our ability to construct for space applications.
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
Since the working assumption in physics is that all forces are actually manifestations of the same force, you can't simply dismiss gravity as irrelevant to the EmDrive especially since we really don't know the proper unification equations. Maybe it's a lot simpler than the string theorists believe. Maybe the EmDrive is pointing the way.
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
I reiterate - The tests done in "vacuum" were not even close to theoretical vacuum. Best we can do, but simple calculations show air particle count on the order of 10^+14 particles at the tested level of vacuum hardness. That is 1. followed by 15 zeros. Compare that to O(10^+23) particles at atmospheric pressure. If the particles within the frustum are involved in the "thrust" generation then the most we can say is, "Fewer particles, lower thrust." And if they are involved then perfectly sealed, rigid frustums are well within our ability to construct for space applications.
I don't understand your argument. Is it related to something I discussed? :
1) I carefully stated "partial vacuum" and not "vacuum". "Vacuum" and "close to theoretical vacuum" are your words.
2) The arguments I posted have to do with the effect of external thermal convection on the measured forces. Are you positing that TU Dresden and NASA forces measured in partial vacuum are due to thermal convection from the particle count of air particles in their vacuum chambers, and thus are you arguing that they are experimental artifacts due to external thermal convection?
Or, are you proposing that such external thermal convection based on those few air particles in Space can be used for Space Propulsion ? ???
Or are you proposing that internal forces from thermal convection or any other form of internal force can result in self-acceleration and propulsion and not contravene conservation of momentum, without expelling any propellant and without interacting with any exterior field ? ???
Or did you mean yet another effect?
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
But the distant objects are also affected (pushed back) as a result of this interaction, correct? Even though this effect is extremely small due to the larger masses.
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
But the distant objects are also affected (pushed back) as a result of this interaction, correct? Even though this effect is extremely small due to the larger masses.
Yes, that's essentially correct, but according to my understanding of Woodward's hypothesis this would be better stated as that the other massive objects inertia is affected. It is the inertia that first changes, and acceleration is a result of the change in inertia, in order to conserve momentum.
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
The logic of what you propose is correct, but the question is what is the numerical effect of this.
For example, the location of the maximum energy density in TE012 is likely not to be exactly in the middle. It is near the middle.
So qualitatively, the test should be whether TE011 and TE013 result in greater thrust/InputForce than TE012. By how much, is a numerical issue...
And the problem with the tests and falsification is that the measured forces are extremely small and there are experimental artifacts (thermal convection at ambient pressure for example) that are demonstrably larger.
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower".
It is not the position of the energy that is relevant, it is the gradient from high to low. If the the energy stored by the Q is at the small end, and there is higher dissipation at the big end, it should not accelerate with the big end leading.
All the data I have examined to date, fit the model. More so after last night's revealing post.
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
..snip...
The logic of what you propose is correct, but the question is what is the numerical effect of this.
For example, the location of the maximum energy density in TE012 is likely not to be exactly in the middle. It is near the middle.
So qualitatively, the test should be whether TE011 and TE012 result in greater thrust/InputForce than TE012. By how much, is a numerical issue...
And the problem with the tests and falsification is that the measured forces are extremely small and there are experimental artifacts (thermal convection at ambient pressure for example) that are demonstrably larger.
Absolutely should be numerical. I was simplifying to Boolean logic for purposes of illustration, but really in this case it would read "The force generated for constant input energy would be proportional to the distance of the center of energy from the ends of the frustum". (it's a bit convoluted to turn this into a NOT statement admittedly)
On your other point about the currently large measurement error, I did specify "cheaply", but missed "accurately". I understand we are not there yet. I'm looking at my budget right now for those with gofundme type of accounts...
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
This is a very perceptive comment Dr.Rodal!
Maybe there is a missing negative/positive sign in todd's formula somewhere??
I am not sure about but it could explain this issue. Time to double check this? :)
-
Whenever the talk of thrust direction pops up, I always get confused by which direction the poster is saying the drive would move in. I've attached a simple diagram I hope can clarify for myself and others on which direction the drive is expected to move.
The drive starts in the middle at t0. When the drive is turned on (and assuming there is any thrust), which position does it end up in? At1 or Bt1?
Back to the peanut gallery.
-
Whenever the talk of thrust direction pops up, I always get confused by which direction the poster is saying the drive would move in. I've attached a simple diagram I hope can clarify for myself and others on which direction the drive is expected to move.
The drive starts in the middle at t0. When the drive is turned on (and assuming there is any thrust), which position does it end up in? At1 or Bt1?
Back to the peanut gallery.
for NASA Eagleworks in mode shapes TM212 and TE012, with the HDPE insert at the small end,
it moves from position to to position At1
other mode shapes, with other positions of the dielectric involve movement in different directions,
but most NASA tests have been in TM212 with the HDPE insert at the small end, which moves from position to to position At1
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
"I rest my case"?
I asked what dissipation you were considering in your theory. I guess you are considering the dissipation in the copper skin, in its skin depth. And not just inside the frustum cavity...
It says 59.9985 W dissipated by the copper in the entire copper truncated cone, not just at the big end.
.....
Next we have to show the distribution of the power dissipated throughout the frustum
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
which shows that indeed the dissipation in the copper is mostly at the big end, and that overwhelms the dissipation in the dielectric
now you can go and rest ;)
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
-
Nice video of the Flight Thruster which shows the "Tuning Port":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k&feature=youtu.be&t=553
Seems to be very light, so it is probably Aluminum based.
Remember your posts back to Thread 2 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374508#msg1374508) one year an a half ago, about whether or not Shawyer's "Flight Thruster" had flat or spherical end plates? We didn't have many pictures of this particular EmDrive back then: first, this one (http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html) on Shawyer's website showing flat end flanges, and more importantly this big one (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141) published by International Business Times 30 April 2015 and in subsequent articles, in which you saw the possibility of spherically shaped ends. But in the recent Shawyer interview video, the Flight Thruster he shows has flat ends.
However it is worth noting there are at least two Flight Thrusters: a preliminary prototype (the one we see in the video you linked to, Shawyer even specifically says "This is an early example of a Flight Thruster") and the Flight Thruster that has been delivered to Boeing (Boeing kept its own licensed test article in 2010).
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
So I conclude that your statement that Neoprene gave bad results because of "overdamping" is not justified
Rather, if one uses Neoprene at the small end, then the dissipation will be:
100*0.0015 W dissipated in the Neoprene = 0.15 W
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
Neoprene being 0.25 % of the one in the copper still insignificant compared to the dissipation in the Copper
How can Neoprene make the system overdamped? when it only changes it by 0.25% ???
Don't rest ! ;)
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
So I conclude that your statement that Neoprene gave bad results because of "overdamping" is not justified
Rather, if one uses Neoprene at the small end, then the dissipation will be:
100*0.0015 W dissipated in the Neoprene = 0.15 W
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
Neoprene being 0.25 % of the one in the copper still insignificant compared to the dissipation in the Copper
How can Neoprene make the system overdamped? when it only changes it by 0.25% ???
Don't rest ! ;)
Maybe it wasn't "over-damped" but it was just too much damping for the 30W of available input power. If they had increased input power to 60W as was used in the slide above, it might have provided some thrust results to compare to, but at 30W it was enough damping to "collapse" the resonance. Without resonance, nothing is expected to happen.
-
...
Maybe it wasn't "over-damped" but it was just too much damping for the 30W of available input power. If they had increased input power to 60W as was used in the slide above, it might have provided some thrust results to compare to, but at 30W it was enough damping to "collapse" the resonance. Without resonance, nothing is expected to happen.
A dielectric would have a significant effect on a Superconducting EM Drive... it will probably screw it up...
That explains why Cannae is now using a dielectric with the copper Cannae drives but it is not using a dielectric with the Superconducting Cannae drives !
-
...Here are the equations of my theory with both the frequency and the decay time, expressed as variables of the "r" coordinate, distance from the apex of the cone. Hopefully (@meems) the connection to gravity is apparent now? It didn't really change the result, except the factor of 1/2 is gone now. I don't see where I made an error, but hopefully, at most it's a factor of 2. :)
Todd
Edit 2: Note, space-time metric line element ONLY applies inside the frustum. :)
Edit: Heck, why not write out a conformally flat space-time metric line element in terms of Q for the EM Drive, now that I have K in terms of Q...
"Welcome to The Q Continuum!"
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1384242;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1384244;sess=47405)
If my equations above are correct, then for a mode like TE012 or TE013, Shawyer is "almost" right. If my association of Q with the vacuum refractive index K, of the PV Model is justified, then where the Q is higher, the radial speed of light will be slower and the momentum of that light will be greater. "b" is for the big end, "s" is for the small end, and using the PV Model of General Relativity, we get a velocity gradient.
c/Ks < c/Kb < c
or
c/Qs < c/Qb < c
Since, ds = 0 for light, the coordinate velocity of light will be; dr/dt = c/Q(r)
p*sqrt(Qs) > p*sqrt(Qb)
Roger has the right idea, but the wrong mathematics. (Assuming mine is right that is.)
-
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you.
“I ask not for any crown
But that which all may win;
Nor try to conquer any world
Except the one within.”
― Louisa May Alcott...
I have this printed out and hanging on my wall.
Shell
I like it. I'm a bit fond of poems myself.
To that which may of end exist.
So soon in time, will be as mist.
The light of might being the mind.
Running ahead we seek to find.
Hidden treasures, buried for fun.
Seeking not our own prize jewel crown.
Rather, we not leave with a frown.
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
I reiterate - The tests done in "vacuum" were not even close to theoretical vacuum. Best we can do, but simple calculations show air particle count on the order of 10^+14 particles at the tested level of vacuum hardness. That is 1. followed by 15 zeros. Compare that to O(10^+23) particles at atmospheric pressure. If the particles within the frustum are involved in the "thrust" generation then the most we can say is, "Fewer particles, lower thrust." And if they are involved then perfectly sealed, rigid frustums are well within our ability to construct for space applications.
I don't understand your argument. Is it related to something I discussed? :
1) I carefully stated "partial vacuum" and not "vacuum". "Vacuum" and "close to theoretical vacuum" are your words.
2) The arguments I posted have to do with the effect of external thermal convection on the measured forces. Are you positing that TU Dresden and NASA forces measured in partial vacuum are due to thermal convection from the particle count of air particles in their vacuum chambers, and thus are you arguing that they are experimental artifacts due to external thermal convection?
Or, are you proposing that such external thermal convection based on those few air particles in Space can be used for Space Propulsion ? ???
Or are you proposing that internal forces from thermal convection or any other form of internal force can result in self-acceleration and propulsion and not contravene conservation of momentum, without expelling any propellant and without interacting with any exterior field ? ???
Or did you mean yet another effect?
1 - That's a misquote. I wrote "not even close to theoretical vacuum."
2 - I am not arguing that measured forces in tests performed in chambers under partial vacuum are due to thermal convection. I would suspect, but will not run the math for proof, that the partial vacuum provides sufficiently reduced thermal convection to effectively eliminate is as a measurement artifact.
Yet another effect. Dr. White has proposed a theory allowing momentum to escape the cavity via the quantum vacuum. I DO NOT propose that air particles carry momentum from inside to outside the cavity, either directly or via the QV. I do state that the possibility of air particles within the cavity acting as an enabler has not been looked at and that is due to such statements that forces measured in vacuum tests are much reduced hence the implication is that the total effect must be thermal convection. Thermal convection can not be ignored, that does not mean that ALL effects from air particles are thermal.
I guess that carefully constructed tests with a sealed cavity (both pressurized and evacuated) performed within a vacuum chamber might indicate by comparison whether or not the air particles within the frustum participate in the thrust effect.
-
"Proud to announce that the EMDrive V4 will be tested in high vacuum in one of the world´s best test rigs at the Technical University in Dresden.
Special thanx go to Professor Martin Tajmar for making it possible." Paul Koycla Aachen Germany
https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/48016-emdrive-goes-for-serious-testing
-
...
Yet another effect. Dr. White has proposed a theory allowing momentum to escape the cavity via the quantum vacuum. I DO NOT propose that air particles carry momentum from inside to outside the cavity, either directly or via the QV. I do state that the possibility of air particles within the cavity acting as an enabler has not been looked at and that is due to such statements that forces measured in vacuum tests are much reduced hence the implication is that the total effect must be thermal convection. Thermal convection can not be ignored, that does not mean that ALL effects from air particles are thermal.
I guess that carefully constructed tests with a sealed cavity (both pressurized and evacuated) performed within a vacuum chamber might indicate by comparison whether or not the air particles within the frustum participate in the thrust effect.
That's not such a bad idea. The refractive index of air does vary wrt temperature, pressure and density. Regardless if the air is escaping or not, a pressure or density gradient inside could/should enhance the effect "IF" the density varies in the same way as the Q.
-
“I ask not for any crown
But that which all may win;
Nor try to conquer any world
Except the one within.”
― Louisa May Alcott...
I have this printed out and hanging on my wall.
Shell
I like it. I'm a bit fond of poems myself.
To that which may of end exist.
So soon in time, will be as mist.
The light of might being the mind.
Running ahead we seek to find.
Hidden treasures, buried for fun.
Seeking not our own prize jewel crown.
Rather, we not leave with a frown.
So my wife drops by to kiss my bald spot on her way to bed, sees me reading, and says "What are they doing?'
I answer: "Exchanging poetry."
You folks, all, are the best! Every day, one of the greatest pleasures I have is to come here and read, and gain smidgens of understanding. Keep it up.
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
"I rest my case"?
I asked what dissipation you were considering in your theory. I guess you are considering the dissipation in the copper skin, in its skin depth. And not just inside the frustum cavity...
It says 59.9985 W dissipated by the copper in the entire copper truncated cone, not just at the big end.
.....
Next we have to show the distribution of the power dissipated throughout the frustum
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
which shows that indeed the dissipation in the copper is mostly at the big end, and that overwhelms the dissipation in the dielectric
now you can go and rest ;)
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric ???
-
'Shopped & Cropped Koycla EmDrive in Dresden
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1152924;image)
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
"I rest my case"?
I asked what dissipation you were considering in your theory. I guess you are considering the dissipation in the copper skin, in its skin depth. And not just inside the frustum cavity...
It says 59.9985 W dissipated by the copper in the entire copper truncated cone, not just at the big end.
.....
Next we have to show the distribution of the power dissipated throughout the frustum
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
which shows that indeed the dissipation in the copper is mostly at the big end, and that overwhelms the dissipation in the dielectric
now you can go and rest ;)
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric ???
We need to be open about use of the dielectrics being a key ingredient in creating thrusts, open to the idea that maybe it's not the key. Although there is a some evidence that EW saw it, it's not what I've seen in some of the DYIers and even mine.
What is on my schedule is to look at my KS-series drive in the TE013 mode to see if it's possibly other or a combination of reasons. One contender is how far past a cutoff distance does the frustum need to be to show thrusts without dielectrics and map out the plate distance profiles in incremental steps to map out the thrust changes, I can do this with my quartz tuning rod.
Shell
-
...
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric ???
That would imply that adding the dielectric reduced the power lost at the small end. The HDPE had lower losses than the copper in this setup. Which does not surprise me considering FR4 copper board is not a very good heat sink.
-
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric ???
That is not correct.
-
Nice video of the Flight Thruster which shows the "Tuning Port":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k&feature=youtu.be&t=553
Seems to be very light, so it is probably Aluminum based.
Thanks. His comments also are, to me, the best most simple explanation of how the EmDrive works (if indeed, this is how it works, and if, of course, it works)
-
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric ???
That is not correct.
To be rigorous , the AIAA July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH, NASA Brady et.al report reported
and measured no significant net thrust.
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Nobody else, to my knowledge (neither Shawyer, Tajmar, Yang, etc.) has formally reported in a published paper a comparison using the same dielectrics (extruded HDPE and PTFE) as NASA, with and without them, under similar geometry and mode shapes.
To understand what is going on, similar comparisons have to be formally published (Shawyer did not use these polymer dielectrics, instead he used inorganic dielectrics).
-
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Excited mode is not relevant. EW has observed force generation without a dielectric.
-
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Excited mode is not relevant. EW has observed force generation without a dielectric.
It might be relevant; we still don't know why dielectrics are important in some builds, in some geometries, and in specific input frequencies.
-
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Excited mode is not relevant. EW has observed force generation without a dielectric.
Could you quote a specific post regarding your statement please? Maybe I missed the one or other post along the thread history. ::)
My statement was based on the NASA EW report about the Brady et al frustum as due to the emdrive.wiki information. As far as I know this information is popularly accepted till now and based on proved data.
Is there any more information, for example which direction of thrust was observed or the thrust level without dielectric insert? Especially is there any official publication in a physical meaning manner other than a short statement like "Yah, I beleve I have seen..."?
Thanks
-
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Excited mode is not relevant. EW has observed force generation without a dielectric.
All of this is relevant, until the EM Drive is better understood, and these issues are clarified:
* measured in another measuring device instead of the torsional pendulum used previously by NASA Eagleworks,
* measured in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report),
* measured under ambient pressure, (not in partial vacuum)
* Star-Drive emphasized the word "may" in "may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric"
(Statistical considerations are important in assessing the relevance of any experimental measurement being discussed)
* nobody else, other than NASA has published results comparing the use of HDPE and PTFE dielectrics in a truncated cone and without using them. In particular Shawyer used very different dielectrics: stiff inorganic dielectrics rather than compliant extruded polymers
* the figure of merit for the EM Drive is the force/PowerInput, not just the force
==> the point being, if the force is thrust that can be used for Space Propulsion and not an experimental artifact, is thrust/PowerInput greater with HDPE and PTFE and if so, under what conditions ?
EDIT: Obviously, I would think that if the results with the HDPE and PTFE dielectric would result in smaller force/InputPower, than with it, the logical course of action for NASA would be to get rid of the dielectrics, as suggested by Shawyer, so if NASA keeps them one would think it is for a good reason ???
-
my recollection is that later discussion by Star-Drive at NSF was to the effect that later measurements in another measuring device, in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report), under ambient pressure, may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric, but that the measurements with a dielectric still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
Excited mode is not relevant. EW has observed force generation without a dielectric.
All of this is relevant, until the EM Drive is better understood, and these issues are clarified:
* measured in another measuring device instead of the torsional pendulum used previously by NASA Eagleworks,
* measured in another mode shape (not the TE012 mode shape discussed in that paragraph in the Brady report),
* measured under ambient pressure, (not in partial vacuum)
* Star-Drive emphasized the word "may" in "may have resulted in a force measurement without a dielectric"
(Statistical considerations are important in assessing the relevance of any experimental measurement being discussed)
* nobody else, other than NASA has published results comparing the use of HDPE and PTFE dielectrics in a truncated cone and without using them. In particular Shawyer used very different dielectrics: stiff inorganic dielectrics rather than compliant extruded polymers
* the measurements with a dielectric at NASA still gave greater force/inputPower measurements than without the dielectric, at NASA.
* the figure of merit for the EM Drive is the force/PowerInput, not just the force
==> the point being, if the force is thrust that can be used for Space Propulsion and not an experimental artifact, is thrust/PowerInput greater with HDPE and PTFE and if so, under what conditions ?
I am Looking forward to future reports of SeeShells, Monomorphic, Paul Kocyla, EW and others. :)
The more data we have the better. It will give us new chances, to test the different suggested theories.
-
I keep coming up against people st the moment saying it cannot work because it's a closed system.
-
I keep coming up against people st the moment saying it cannot work because it's a closed system.
That's not the case! Most here have an open mind for the possibility that it may work. This hope is the main reason why we are here. Nevertheless due to the available data we have, we have to accept that it may be due to experimental artefacts. Or can you report some new upcoming data? ::)
Add
"Closed system" depends on definitions and the related dependencies.
Better I am skeptic than a fanatic blind believer, I "believe" in provable experimental data/informations ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
-
I keep coming up against people st the moment saying it cannot work because it's a closed system.
That's not the case! Most here have an open mind for the possibility that it may work. This hope is the main reason why we are here. Nevertheless due to the available data we have, we have to accept that it may be due to experimental artefacts. Or can you report some new upcoming data? ::)
I am engaged in discussions online elsewhere that I was referring to.
-
I keep coming up against people st the moment saying it cannot work because it's a closed system.
Well, that is conventional wisdom. Unless the EM drive works due to some strange quirk of bouncing microwaves around, it has to be interacting with something (virtual particles, gravity, etc.) and therefore isn't a closed system. What proponents need is experimental evidence of a force well above the signal to noise ratio. Then people will take the results seriously even if they don't understand how it works.
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees
If my equations are correct, and Q is an effective refractive index, K. Then momentum that moves from low potential to higher potential, will gain momentum due to the increase in Q, and vise versa as the reflection moves back to the lower Q at the back. This change in momentum is a force acting at omega!
-
Shawyer's recent patent can be more than a truncated cone. I found "TE014" using this "bell-wedge geometry", looking for "TE013" now.
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees
If my equations are correct, and Q is an effective refractive index, K. Then momentum that moves from low potential to higher potential, will gain momentum due to the increase in Q, and vise versa as the reflection moves back to the lower Q at the back. This change in momentum is a force acting at omega!
Can you show that with more detail?
Electromagnetic momentum is given by Poynting vector which goes like 2*omega because it is a quadratic function of the fields.
Ditto in General Relativity with the stress-energy-momentum tensor: the momentum density and the momentum flux are a function of the square of the fields:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg/236px-StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg.png)
How come your momentum is a linear function of the fields instead of the square of the fields?
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees
If my equations are correct, and Q is an effective refractive index, K. Then momentum that moves from low potential to higher potential, will gain momentum due to the increase in Q, and vise versa as the reflection moves back to the lower Q at the back. This change in momentum is a force acting at omega!
Can you show that with more detail?
Electromagnetic momentum is given by Poynting vector which goes like 2*omega because it is a quadratic function of the fields.
Ditto in General Relativity with the stress-energy-momentum tensor: the momentum density and the momentum flux are a function of the square of the fields:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg/236px-StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg.png)
How come your momentum is a linear function of the fields instead of the square of the fields?
What you say is true in a space where the refractive index is a constant, or where the metric is Minkowski's. In the PV Model E and H fields are unaffected or "invariant" with respect to K transformations. However, D and B are not.
S = E x H => S(K) = E x H
Pd = D x B => Pd(K) = (K*D) x (K*B) = K2Pd
where S is the Poynting vector and Pd is the Momentum density vector. This comes from the fact that,
(c/K)2 = 1/(K*ε0*K*μ0)
In PV, Power and Area are covariant with the speed of light, so S is unaffected by K, but momentum density is strongly affected. Now, replace K with Q and...
Edit: Due to the gradient in the potential Q, the energy is either going up-hill or down-hill, and oscillates at omega. There is no way to full-wave rectify this such that up = down.
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees
If my equations are correct, and Q is an effective refractive index, K. Then momentum that moves from low potential to higher potential, will gain momentum due to the increase in Q, and vise versa as the reflection moves back to the lower Q at the back. This change in momentum is a force acting at omega!
Can you show that with more detail?
Electromagnetic momentum is given by Poynting vector which goes like 2*omega because it is a quadratic function of the fields.
Ditto in General Relativity with the stress-energy-momentum tensor: the momentum density and the momentum flux are a function of the square of the fields:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg/236px-StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg.png)
How come your momentum is a linear function of the fields instead of the square of the fields?
What you say is true in a space where the refractive index is a constant, or where the metric is Minkowski's. In the PV Model E and H fields are unaffected or "invariant" with respect to K transformations. However, D and B are not.
S = E x H => S(K) = E x H
Pd = D x B => Pd(K) = (K*D) x (K*B) = K2Pd
where S is the Poynting vector and Pd is the Momentum density vector. This comes from the fact that,
(c/K)2 = 1/(K*ε0*K*μ0)
In PV, Power and Area are covariant with the speed of light, so S is unaffected by K, but momentum density is strongly affected. Now, replace K with Q and...
Edit: Due to the gradient in the potential Q, the energy is either going up-hill or down-hill, and oscillates at omega. There is no way to full-wave rectify this such that up = down.
what is a linear function of the frequency omega of the electric fields there ?
-
...
If my equations are correct, and Q is an effective refractive index, K. Then momentum that moves from low potential to higher potential, will gain momentum due to the increase in Q, and vise versa as the reflection moves back to the lower Q at the back. This change in momentum is a force acting at omega!
Can you show that with more detail?
Electromagnetic momentum is given by Poynting vector which goes like 2*omega because it is a quadratic function of the fields.
Ditto in General Relativity with the stress-energy-momentum tensor: the momentum density and the momentum flux are a function of the square of the fields:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg/236px-StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg.png)
How come your momentum is a linear function of the fields instead of the square of the fields?
What you say is true in a space where the refractive index is a constant, or where the metric is Minkowski's. In the PV Model E and H fields are unaffected or "invariant" with respect to K transformations. However, D and B are not.
S = E x H => S(K) = E x H
Pd = D x B => Pd(K) = (K*D) x (K*B) = K2Pd
where S is the Poynting vector and Pd is the Momentum density vector. This comes from the fact that,
(c/K)2 = 1/(K*ε0*K*μ0)
In PV, Power and Area are covariant with the speed of light, so S is unaffected by K, but momentum density is strongly affected. Now, replace K with Q and...
Edit: Due to the gradient in the potential Q, the energy is either going up-hill or down-hill, and oscillates at omega. There is no way to full-wave rectify this such that up = down.
what is a linear function of omega there ?
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
Q is not a constant. The "force density" is a function of r, and dQ/dr is not zero. As the wave, P moves from back to front, it completes 1/2 cycle of omega. It's value changes as a linear function of omega. It gains momentum as it moves to the front where Q is higher (down-hill), and it loses momentum as it moves to the back where Q is lower (up-hill). As it goes up and down the hill the "force density" oscillates at frequency omega, not 2 omega. You said we needed a "force" acting at omega, not momentum.
???
-
Good news.
Both spherical end plate frustums passed temp cycling without any delamination. Difference was to NOT highly polish between coatings, put on a double thickness Silver coating, super polish that and then gold flash.
Now they start building 2 flat end plate variants, so I can test and evaluate the difference between flat & spherical end plates.
Starting to get excited as all the new hardware gets close to being real and in my workshop.
My new equipment lineup by late Dec/early Jan:
2 x wide freq 100W Rf amps
2 x narrow freq (2.4-2.5GHz) 250W Rf amps
4 x freq generator
4 x lowest reflected power freq tracker with additional input for accelerometer input
1 x 0.01g 3kg max hacked digital with direct load cell output
1 x magnetic thrust bearing rotary test rig
Various microwave interconnect bits & pieces
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Which says Roger's latest design is interesting but full YBCO coating on spherical end plate frustum is maybe a better option for space.
Exciting times to ENGAGE, 3.8 ship years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri at 1g (including mid way flip & burn),
Phil
-
Good news.
Both spherical end plate frustums passed temp cycling without any delamination. Difference was to NOT highly polish between coatings, put on a double thickness Silver coating, super polish that and then gold flash.
Now they start building 2 flat end plate variants, so I can test and evaluate the difference between flat & spherical end plates.
Starting to get excited as all the new hardware gets close to being real and in my workshop.
My new equipment lineup by late Dec/early Jan:
2 x wide freq 100W Rf amps
2 x narrow freq (2.4-2.5GHz) 250W Rf amps
4 x freq generator
4 x lowest reflected power freq tracker with additional input for accelerometer input
1 x 0.01g 3kg max hacked digital with direct load cell output
1 x magnetic thrust bearing rotary test rig
Various microwave interconnect bits & pieces
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Which says Roger's latest design is interesting but full YBCO coating on spherical end plate frustum is maybe a better option for space.
Exciting times to ENGAGE, 3.8 ship years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri at 1g (including mid way flip & burn),
Phil
Sounds exciting. How long until you put the whole thing together and test? Is this for a commercial customer or will you be sharing the results on NSF? How did you handle the power source burnout that everyone else is having? Do you have a circulator?
-
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Passive cooling to 7K is not happening near earth or in the solar system. Radiant heat from the sun / earth / moon will keep things much warmer than that.
Look at something like James Webb, which uses active cooling plus a sun shade to keep its optics around 40-50K. Heat from electronics is part of it, but the primary driver is solar radiation.
Outside the solar system, you would still need a good reason to get it that cold, because you want the rest of your vehicle much warmer; many things do not like being in cryo conditions. The rest of the vehicle being warmer means active cooling again.
-
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Passive cooling to 7K is not happening near earth or in the solar system. Radiant heat from the sun / earth / moon will keep things much warmer than that.
Look at something like James Webb, which uses active cooling plus a sun shade to keep its optics around 40-50K. Heat from electronics is part of it, but the primary driver is solar radiation.
Outside the solar system, you would still need a good reason to get it that cold, because you want the rest of your vehicle much warmer; many things do not like being in cryo conditions. The rest of the vehicle being warmer means active cooling again.
Outside the solar system, the frustrum can be deported, fixed to the spaceship by an insulated perch, and with the right spaceship side very well insulated so it does not radiate much to the frustrum.
The problem would be : How far the RF generator can be put from the frustrum with reasonable energy losses ?
If really the thrust is 1t/kWrf, the travels would be so fast in the solar system that liquid Helium can be used. But it seems strange to speak about 1t/kWrf when a few milli Newtons are still not proven.
-
Assuming 1t/Kwrf.
Assuming a spaceship of 100t with a 10Kwrf Emdrive.
It would means an acceleration of 1m/s
After 10 days, the spaceship will have covered 1/2*1*(10*86400)^2/1000=37 324 800 km.
So, 10 days of acceleration, and 10 days of decelleration would be enough to go on mars.
for such a short period, liquid Helium can be used.
If it is for an interstellar mission, less than 130 days of acceleration are required to outdistance Pluto.
So, Liquid Helium is a viable solution for interplanetary transport, to be followed by passive cooling for interstallar transport.
But of course, it is assuming 1t/Kwrf
If it is only 1kg/Kwrf, it is less good. :P
And for now, proving 10g/Kwrf should be already great. :-X
If the final thrust/energy ratio was comparable to Ion Thrusters, then, active cooling seems to be necessary.
-
Assuming 1t/Kwrf.
Assuming a spaceship of 100t with a 10Kwrf Emdrive.
It would means an acceleration of 1m/s
After 10 days, the spaceship will have covered 1/2*1*(10*86400)^2/1000=37 324 800 km.
So, 10 days of acceleration, and 10 days of decelleration would be enough to go on mars.
for such a short period, liquid Helium can be used.
If it is for an interstellar mission, less than 130 days of acceleration are required to outdistance Pluto.
So, Liquid Helium is a viable solution for interplanetary transport, to be followed by passive cooling for interstallar transport.
But of course, it is assuming 1t/Kwrf
If it is only 1kg/Kwrf, it is less good. :P
And for now, proving 10g/Kwrf should be already great. :-X
If the final thrust/energy ratio was comparable to Ion Thrusters, then, active cooling seems to be necessary.
Just stack enough 1t//kWrf EmDrives to achieve 1g acceleration of the ship's mass.
3.8 ships years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Alpha Centauri orbiti, with a mid way filp & burn.
-
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Passive cooling to 7K is not happening near earth or in the solar system. Radiant heat from the sun / earth / moon will keep things much warmer than that.
Look at something like James Webb, which uses active cooling plus a sun shade to keep its optics around 40-50K. Heat from electronics is part of it, but the primary driver is solar radiation.
Outside the solar system, you would still need a good reason to get it that cold, because you want the rest of your vehicle much warmer; many things do not like being in cryo conditions. The rest of the vehicle being warmer means active cooling again.
YBCO works well at 70K, or LN2 cooling to supplement deep space 7K passive cooling.
-
Good news.
Both spherical end plate frustums passed temp cycling without any delamination. Difference was to NOT highly polish between coatings, put on a double thickness Silver coating, super polish that and then gold flash.
Now they start building 2 flat end plate variants, so I can test and evaluate the difference between flat & spherical end plates.
Starting to get excited as all the new hardware gets close to being real and in my workshop.
My new equipment lineup by late Dec/early Jan:
2 x wide freq 100W Rf amps
2 x narrow freq (2.4-2.5GHz) 250W Rf amps
4 x freq generator
4 x lowest reflected power freq tracker with additional input for accelerometer input
1 x 0.01g 3kg max hacked digital with direct load cell output
1 x magnetic thrust bearing rotary test rig
Various microwave interconnect bits & pieces
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Which says Roger's latest design is interesting but full YBCO coating on spherical end plate frustum is maybe a better option for space.
Exciting times to ENGAGE, 3.8 ship years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri at 1g (including mid way flip & burn),
Phil
Sounds exciting. How long until you put the whole thing together and test? Is this for a commercial customer or will you be sharing the results on NSF? How did you handle the power source burnout that everyone else is having? Do you have a circulator?
Burnout elimination is just standard Microwave enginerring. Yes you need circulators and heat sinks. Don't use them and yes maggies & Rf amps die quick.
-
Good news.
Both spherical end plate frustums passed temp cycling without any delamination. Difference was to NOT highly polish between coatings, put on a double thickness Silver coating, super polish that and then gold flash.
Now they start building 2 flat end plate variants, so I can test and evaluate the difference between flat & spherical end plates.
Starting to get excited as all the new hardware gets close to being real and in my workshop.
My new equipment lineup by late Dec/early Jan:
2 x wide freq 100W Rf amps
2 x narrow freq (2.4-2.5GHz) 250W Rf amps
4 x freq generator
4 x lowest reflected power freq tracker with additional input for accelerometer input
1 x 0.01g 3kg max hacked digital with direct load cell output
1 x magnetic thrust bearing rotary test rig
Various microwave interconnect bits & pieces
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Which says Roger's latest design is interesting but full YBCO coating on spherical end plate frustum is maybe a better option for space.
Exciting times to ENGAGE, 3.8 ship years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri at 1g (including mid way flip & burn),
Phil
I thought you had built your device several months ago. YBCO film is anisotropic in the X - Y plane. In the Z dimension the superconductivity is just a molecule thick. My experiments with high temperature superconductors has shown that they are lossy when exposed to AC > 60 Hz. Cryo cavities are typically made with type I superconductors, like Niobium. You cannot achieve superconducting temperatures with passive cooling. In Earth orbit the minimum temperature is -100 C (173 K). Away from Earth lower temps are possible, but active cooling would still be required. That is all moot because YBCO and other type II superconductors would not work anyway.
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
There are dozens of counter examples. I think that you confound pure enginering problems, and "new physics" problems.
In most of enginering problems, the laws of physics are not in question. Designing a 3 million spares Saturn V meant thousands or millions of enginering problems (bigs or smalls) that were resoluted. Here the approach divide and conquer is perfect.
But, when you get an experiment that violates the standard laws of physics, you have to look together the laws and the experiment. It is not about only enginering, it is about new physics and non standard enginering.
In fact, at the contrary of what you are saying, the progress of the knowledge of physical laws, were very often with several different experiments.
For example, the Copernicus revolution. It was not about just one phenomenon. It was about the movements of all knowns planets. And these movements were different for each one. the internal planets were obeying different rules than external planets. The copernicus theory, with only one rule, explained all these movements. It was not more precise than the epicycles. In fact, using circles, it was less precise, but it explained all movements by the same law.
Later, came Newton. With the law of gravity, he explained at the same time the movement of the planets around the sun, and the apple falling of the tree, that were considered like two totally different phenomenons before.
When the periodical classification of elements was made, it was also taking into account dozens of different atoms at the same time. If each atom had been considered like a separated problem, how would have been possible an atomic theory ?
In 1844, William Robert Grove postulated a relationship between mechanics, heat, light, electricity and magnetism by treating them all as manifestations of a single "force" (energy in modern terms)
Here also, very different phenomenons, linked together by a new theory !
Later, The famous E=MC^2 linked mass, and energy, that were precedently considered like separated, explaining at the same time very different things.
And in General Relativity, time, gravity, and the metric are linked ! All things that were considered like different a century ago.
So, at the opposite of what you say, explaining different things with one theory is a good thing in theoretical approach. And once the new theory is validated, it help engineers to do the work. Of course, bridges could be constructed before that gravity was discovered, and before strength of materials was theorized, but it helps to construct lighther and bigger bridges.
Emdrive is not only an enginering problem, it is a new physics problem. You can not solve a new physics problem without speaking of physical laws. It is logically impossible. We are not speaking of building a new bridge, we are speaking of a device that violates standard physics. Any attempt to explain how the emdrive works needs at least a new law or a modified law. One experiment, one law. It is the minimum here. If you don't like the idea of modifying gravity, what physical law would you modify ?
Once again, I have no personal opinion about the precise Todd Theory, what is still in the earlier stages of developpement, but IMHO gravity is a good candidate.
Yes, and this thread is named "New Physics for Space Technology" so let´s talk about it.
Going on, MiHsC theory is really predicting facts. Those two articles were written to support the dark matter model, and questions MoND, but the data presented and analysed in them firmly supports the MiHsC model of inertia and gravity of Dr. McCulloch:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05003v2.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.06183v1.pdf
Surprisingly, in both publications you can see in Fig. 2 that MoND doesn't fit galaxy stellar velocities when the universe was smaller (redshift z = 1 and redshift z = 2).
The incredible fact is that MiHcS theory does, as Dr. McCulloch points in this graph (an article is going to be published about this).
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
Q is not a constant. The "force density" is a function of r, and dQ/dr is not zero. As the wave, P moves from back to front, it completes 1/2 cycle of omega. It's value changes as a linear function of omega. It gains momentum as it moves to the front where Q is higher (down-hill), and it loses momentum as it moves to the back where Q is lower (up-hill). As it goes up and down the hill the "force density" oscillates at frequency omega, not 2 omega. You said we needed a "force" acting at omega, not momentum.
???
You mention the wave traveling from back to front increasing in momentum and then back again decreasing in momentum. That is is good, but there is another counter-propagating wave simultaneously going back and forth. I believe this is where we get the 2omega.
This looks really similar to what I was saying about the mass of the photon changing at one end but I don't often mention the change in velocity. The change in wavelength at the narrow end seems to be a parallel to a change in the value of K, which was symbolic of an increase in momentum. I think I remember looking at one simulation and suggesting it was almost a difference of 4 or 2. It is almost the opposite of what Shawyer is saying though because he seems to imply the momentum decreases at the narrow end. It would be nice if they could put in a mirror sensor in the narrow end and test if the photon momentum is actually increasing or not.
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
Q is not a constant. The "force density" is a function of r, and dQ/dr is not zero. As the wave, P moves from back to front, it completes 1/2 cycle of omega. It's value changes as a linear function of omega. It gains momentum as it moves to the front where Q is higher (down-hill), and it loses momentum as it moves to the back where Q is lower (up-hill). As it goes up and down the hill the "force density" oscillates at frequency omega, not 2 omega. You said we needed a "force" acting at omega, not momentum.
???
You mention the wave traveling from back to front increasing in momentum and then back again decreasing in momentum. That is is good, but there is another counter-propagating wave simultaneously going back and forth. I believe this is where we get the 2omega.
This looks really similar to what I was saying about the mass of the photon changing at one end but I would also need to state the change in velocity. Also that the wavelength at the narrow end was a parallel to a change in the value of K, which was symbolic of an increase in momentum. It is almost the opposite of what Shawyer is saying though. It would be nice if they could put in a mirror sensor in the narrow end and test if the photon momentum is actually increasing or not.
I still don't understand what is the mathematical expression for the "force density" that oscillates at the same frequency as E and B (or H), do you?
What are the units of this force density?
What is the equation for the force density? What is this force due to ? A gradient of Q? but Q is a property of the whole entire cavity. Different cavities can have different Q, depending on the eigenmodes/eigenfrequencies, the geometry and the material in the cavity. So how can there be a gradient of Q, dQ/dr, in the longitudinal (r) direction for the same cavity?
How does dP/dr give a linear expression of omega?
if omega is not a function of r, and S is independent of omega, I see a quadratic expression of omega there
-
When there is more dissipation at one side of the cavity as for the other, than this means more heat at this side and therefore a temporary electron displacement into the direction of the colder side and more ir-radiation enters the free space(photon rocket). I mean there is no loss of energy but a conversion into other forms. Of course this effect on the electrons in the cavity material is reversable and therefore not usable for propulsion.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1510123#msg1510123
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
Q is not a constant. The "force density" is a function of r, and dQ/dr is not zero. As the wave, P moves from back to front, it completes 1/2 cycle of omega. It's value changes as a linear function of omega. It gains momentum as it moves to the front where Q is higher (down-hill), and it loses momentum as it moves to the back where Q is lower (up-hill). As it goes up and down the hill the "force density" oscillates at frequency omega, not 2 omega. You said we needed a "force" acting at omega, not momentum.
???
You mention the wave traveling from back to front increasing in momentum and then back again decreasing in momentum. That is is good, but there is another counter-propagating wave simultaneously going back and forth. I believe this is where we get the 2omega.
This looks really similar to what I was saying about the mass of the photon changing at one end but I would also need to state the change in velocity. Also that the wavelength at the narrow end was a parallel to a change in the value of K, which was symbolic of an increase in momentum. It is almost the opposite of what Shawyer is saying though. It would be nice if they could put in a mirror sensor in the narrow end and test if the photon momentum is actually increasing or not.
I still don't understand what is the mathematical expression for the "force density" that oscillates at the same frequency as E and B (or H), do you?
What are the units of this force density?
What is the equation for the force density? What is this force due to ? A gradient of Q? but Q is a property of the whole entire cavity. Different cavities can have different Q, depending on the eigenmodes/eigenfrequencies, the geometry and the material in the cavity. So how can there be a gradient of Q for the same cavity?
Ouch. I just realized looking at this paper here: page 21 Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity by H. E. Puthoff (https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf) that I had it backwards. An increase in the wavelength suggests a decrease in the value of K which throws a monkey wrench in my hypothesis of the mass of light increasing at the narrow end. It lines up better with what Shawyer was saying. That the momentum of light decreases at the narrow end.
(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\lambda(K)=\frac{v_L(K)}{\omega(K)}=\frac{c\sqrt{K}}{K\,\omega_o}=\frac{\lambda_o}{\sqrt{K}})
Maybe WarpTech has a better angle on this. I am curious WarpTech. Does your model predict a smaller wavelength at the narrow end?
If the momentum of light increases at the big end then maybe it is a direct indication of the change in momentum of the quantum vacuum? That is if light is some stimulation of virtual electron-positron pairs at the low level. If the quantum vacuum has increased in momentum at the big end then the cavity must increase in momentum in the direction of the narrow end. But why?
The PV equations give a change in frequency of the light as it leaves the big end my being corrected, K should decrease at the narrow end. This change in frequency as the light leaves the big end leads to a phase mismatch where the phase of the light will be advanced with respect to the current at the base plate. Normally as the light meets the base plate E_max_light = -E_max_big plate so they cancel out. Now we have a phase miss match of E_max_light before the cavity can accelerate its current making its counter electric field.
However, even if there were a phase miss match at the skin depth in copper the copper below should be ample to induce enough current.
What about virtual electron-positron pairs entering the narrow end and as they osculate at the wavelength gradient, maybe they are excited to move towards the big end and as a result of acceleration induce a frequency gradient by an accelerated frame?
Reguardless, this is backwards to what I was expecting. I am going to have to rethink this.
-----
@Dr Rodal. I would guess the measured Q of a cavity is Q_ave or the average Q as a function of the damping of the cavity. Depending on the path the current takes in the cavity, which is what I think WarpTech is getting at. Particularly I think he was looking at the TE modes. Hopefully I am not misleading here. A gradient in the Q is what I suspect he is after which for TE modes would vary with the perimeter(height) of the circle of current, perpendicular to the center axis, as a function of power dissipated through the copper I^2*R/length*perimeter.
-
Assuming 1t/Kwrf.
Assuming a spaceship of 100t with a 10Kwrf Emdrive.
It would means an acceleration of 1m/s
After 10 days, the spaceship will have covered 1/2*1*(10*86400)^2/1000=37 324 800 km.
So, 10 days of acceleration, and 10 days of decelleration would be enough to go on mars.
for such a short period, liquid Helium can be used.
If it is for an interstellar mission, less than 130 days of acceleration are required to outdistance Pluto.
So, Liquid Helium is a viable solution for interplanetary transport, to be followed by passive cooling for interstallar transport.
But of course, it is assuming 1t/Kwrf
If it is only 1kg/Kwrf, it is less good. :P
And for now, proving 10g/Kwrf should be already great. :-X
If the final thrust/energy ratio was comparable to Ion Thrusters, then, active cooling seems to be necessary.
Just stack enough 1t//kWrf EmDrives to achieve 1g acceleration of the ship's mass.
3.8 ships years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Alpha Centauri orbiti, with a mid way filp & burn.
The goal I've had since day one is to establish enough evidence that could lead to humanity's first interstellar probe. It's sole mission is to reach alpha centauri within the lifetime of my children. I've found that lofty goals are a great motivator. Perhaps it's only a dream, but I have not given up hope. Glad you seem to be thinking along the same lines. Why not think big? Perhaps we'll see the launch. Perhaps the time, effort and resources we expend will pay off. We should always be cognizant of the possibilities, that's what makes us human. Good luck with your latest efforts.
-
...
In the attached image, P is momentum density, Q = K is the refractive index AND a Quality factor whose stored energy and dissipation vary within the cavity wrt "r". (This actually makes a lot of sense in terms of the Quantum Gravity of harmonic oscillators.)
But if P is momentum and P is a function of Q2, and Q is a function of omega, then that means that momentum is a function of omega2, instead of a linear function of omega ...
Q is not a constant. The "force density" is a function of r, and dQ/dr is not zero. As the wave, P moves from back to front, it completes 1/2 cycle of omega. It's value changes as a linear function of omega. It gains momentum as it moves to the front where Q is higher (down-hill), and it loses momentum as it moves to the back where Q is lower (up-hill). As it goes up and down the hill the "force density" oscillates at frequency omega, not 2 omega. You said we needed a "force" acting at omega, not momentum.
???
You mention the wave traveling from back to front increasing in momentum and then back again decreasing in momentum. That is is good, but there is another counter-propagating wave simultaneously going back and forth. I believe this is where we get the 2omega.
This looks really similar to what I was saying about the mass of the photon changing at one end but I would also need to state the change in velocity. Also that the wavelength at the narrow end was a parallel to a change in the value of K, which was symbolic of an increase in momentum. It is almost the opposite of what Shawyer is saying though. It would be nice if they could put in a mirror sensor in the narrow end and test if the photon momentum is actually increasing or not.
I still don't understand what is the mathematical expression for the "force density" that oscillates at the same frequency as E and B (or H), do you?
What are the units of this force density?
What is the equation for the force density? What is this force due to ? A gradient of Q? but Q is a property of the whole entire cavity. Different cavities can have different Q, depending on the eigenmodes/eigenfrequencies, the geometry and the material in the cavity. So how can there be a gradient of Q for the same cavity?
Ouch. I just realized looking at this paper here: page 21 Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity by H. E. Puthoff (https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf) that I had it backwards. An increase in the wavelength suggests a decrease in the value of K which throws a monkey wrench in my hypothesis of the mass of light increasing at the narrow end. It lines up better with what Shawyer was saying. That the momentum of light decreases at the narrow end.
(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\lambda(K)=\frac{v_L(K)}{\omega(K)}=\frac{c\sqrt{K}}{K\,\omega_o}=\frac{\lambda_o}{\sqrt{K}})
Maybe WarpTech has a better angle on this. I am curious WarpTech. Does your model predict a smaller wavelength at the narrow end?
My model predicts the wavelength will contract where the stored energy is the greatest. Where that is apparently depends on the shape of the mode, the shape of the frustum, and what's inside it.
If the momentum of light increases at the big end then maybe it is a direct indication of the change in momentum of the quantum vacuum? That is if light is some stimulation of virtual electron-positron pairs at the low level. If the quantum vacuum has increased in momentum at the big end then the cavity must increase in momentum in the direction of the narrow end. But why?
Q is the stored energy divided by the power dissipated per cycle. It serves the same function as K in the PV Model, only if you make the energy stored and the power dissipated, instantaneous variables of the coordinates. This is where @Rodal is going to disagree, because I am essentially redefining what Q is. Give me an alternative?
The PV equations give a change in frequency of the light as it leaves the big end my being corrected, K should decrease at the narrow end. This change in frequency as the light leaves the big end leads to a phase mismatch where the phase of the light will be advanced with respect to the current at the base plate. Normally as the light meets the base plate E_max_light = -E_max_big plate so they cancel out. Now we have a phase miss match of E_max_light before the cavity can accelerate its current making its counter electric field.
However, even if there were a phase miss match at the skin depth in copper the copper below should be ample to induce enough current.
What about virtual electron-positron pairs entering the narrow end and as they osculate at the wavelength gradient, maybe they are excited to move towards the big end and as a result of acceleration induce a frequency gradient by an accelerated frame?
I don't need them.
Reguardless, this is backwards to what I was expecting. I am going to have to rethink this.
-----
@Dr Rodal. I would guess the measured Q of a cavity is Q_ave or the average Q as a function of the damping of the cavity. Depending on the path the current takes in the cavity, which is what I think WarpTech is getting at. Particularly I think he was looking at the TE modes. Hopefully I am not misleading here. A gradient in the Q is what I suspect he is after which for TE modes would vary with the perimeter(height) of the circle of current, perpendicular to the center axis, as a function of power dissipated through the copper I^2*R/length*perimeter.
Like I said, specify the stored energy and the power dissipation as a function of the coordinates. In spherical coordinates, where the origin is the apex of the cone, if the energy is stored near the small end at say, r0. Then the gravitational equal potential surfaces for r > r0, will be concentric spherical shells, centered on the apex of the cone, and increasing (negative) potential energy outwardly from r0. These concentric equal potential surfaces, each have a slightly different value of Q, and ideally, Q ~ 1/r.
Just so you understand, in PV, the wavelength contracts as light approaches the central mass of the gravitational field. It gains momentum and blue shifts. If it's going the other way, away from the gravitational mass, it loses momentum and red shifts. From what I'm gathering from the data, the center of gravitational mass is neither the front, nor the back of the frustum. It is where ever the energy is stored, which depends on a lot of other things.
Another thing that bothers me is, if the inside of the frustum is a highly reflective "ground plane". Then what is the force between the stored energy and the ground plane? If it were stored charge above a ground plane, that would be fairly easy. But a stored energy without charge? In practice, we do not have gravitational mirrors that reflect gravitational fields, but since this field is in a bandwidth that can be reflected... there is a possibility that we are seeing a gravitational dipole reaction between the stored energy and it's reflection.... more maybe later.
-
Good news.
Both spherical end plate frustums passed temp cycling without any delamination. Difference was to NOT highly polish between coatings, put on a double thickness Silver coating, super polish that and then gold flash.
Now they start building 2 flat end plate variants, so I can test and evaluate the difference between flat & spherical end plates.
Starting to get excited as all the new hardware gets close to being real and in my workshop.
My new equipment lineup by late Dec/early Jan:
2 x wide freq 100W Rf amps
2 x narrow freq (2.4-2.5GHz) 250W Rf amps
4 x freq generator
4 x lowest reflected power freq tracker with additional input for accelerometer input
1 x 0.01g 3kg max hacked digital with direct load cell output
1 x magnetic thrust bearing rotary test rig
Various microwave interconnect bits & pieces
Been reading up on YBCO coatings. Looking like a X band YBCO thruster is doable and passively cooled by space to 7K, plus terrestrial cooled to 70K via liquid Nitrogen. Could exceed 10,000N/kWrf or 1t/kWrf so this is 1g drive stuff.
Which says Roger's latest design is interesting but full YBCO coating on spherical end plate frustum is maybe a better option for space.
Exciting times to ENGAGE, 3.8 ship years or 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri at 1g (including mid way flip & burn),
Phil
I thought you had built your device several months ago. YBCO film is anisotropic in the X - Y plane. In the Z dimension the superconductivity is just a molecule thick. My experiments with high temperature superconductors has shown that they are lossy when exposed to AC > 60 Hz. Cryo cavities are typically made with type I superconductors, like Niobium. You cannot achieve superconducting temperatures with passive cooling. In Earth orbit the minimum temperature is -100 C (173 K). Away from Earth lower temps are possible, but active cooling would still be required. That is all moot because YBCO and other type II superconductors would not work anyway.
YBCO is better than Copper at 2.45GHz and it can be made superconductive by passive space cooling. Google it.
As for my spherical end plate build, as I reported here there was an issue with delamination, which appears to have been solved.
-
A hypothetical emdrive solar powered craft could accelerate as it traveled towards the outer solar system. But when it got too far from the sun the solar arrays would generate less electricity? An interstellar craft would have to be nuclear powered?
-
It could be laser powered. Then, for power in interstellar space, it could use a magnetic loop and draw off a tiny fraction of its kinetic energy via interacting with the interstellar medium.
Nukes would be helpful, but aren't an absolute necessity. If you're doing more than ~0.04 c your kinetic energy is more than any fission reactor could *ever* supply.
A hypothetical emdrive solar powered craft could accelerate as it traveled towards the outer solar system. But when it got too far from the sun the solar arrays would generate less electricity? An interstellar craft would have to be nuclear powered?
-
It could be laser powered. Then, for power in interstellar space, it could use a magnetic loop and draw off a tiny fraction of its kinetic energy via interacting with the interstellar medium.
Nukes would be helpful, but aren't an absolute necessity. If you're doing more than ~0.04 c your kinetic energy is more than any fission reactor could *ever* supply.
A hypothetical emdrive solar powered craft could accelerate as it traveled towards the outer solar system. But when it got too far from the sun the solar arrays would generate less electricity? An interstellar craft would have to be nuclear powered?
Shawyer claims that the Emdrive gives constant thrust for constant imput power. So, as it has been shown earlier, if it works like this, you can get far more Kinetic Energy (in any inertial reference frame) that the RF imput of the frustrum.
This point has not been proven, because no experiment has ever shown thrust bigger than P/V (P the electrical power and V the speed in the laboratory reference frame)
But, the opposite has also not been proven. Maybe the Emdrive is stealing energy to something else in the universe. For example stealing Kinetic Energy to other bodies, as it is for Gravity Assist. Or stealing Energy to the Quantum Vacuum, or beyond he Rindler Hoziron.
With the hypothesis of The Traveller, a thrust of 1t/Kwrf, a small interstellar probe would be OK with a Pu238 RTG, or several ones for a big probe. The RTG of the Voyager probes was 470W. A few of these would be OK.
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
There is a huge difference between not taken it for proven, an rejecting it.
I don't consider these Shawyer tests like a proof. They were not conducted in vacuum, and thrust is not big enough for eliminating thermal and other effects. I think that is has beem discussed earlier in these threads. But I don't consider either it is proven wrong. More independant test are needed.
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
doesn't the scientific method demand independent third parties be able to reproduce the results before it can be verified? an experiment needs to be described clearly with apparatus and instructions. this allows anybody to follow the instructions and achieve the same result. this is more difficult in the case of commercially sensitive or state of the art where the scientist is either withholding vital experiment data or a large budget is required for apparatus. the members of the forum are trying to get to a stage where they can consistently and reliably reproduce any amount of thrust. no small task IMHO
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
There is a huge difference between not taken it for proven, an rejecting it.
I don't consider these Shawyer tests like a proof. They were not conducted in vacuum, and thrust is not big enough for eliminating thermal and other effects. I think that is has beem discussed earlier in these threads. But I don't consider either it is proven wrong. More independant test are needed.
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig. As I understand the process it was something like:
Roger ask for funding from UK gov
V
UK Gov asks UK MOD for assistance
V
UK MOD appoints reviewer and review panel
V
Independent reviewer reviews and confirms Roger's claims
V
UK MOD review panel reviews the independent report and advises the appropriate minister's dept
V
Roger gets more funding
I believe this process occurred three times:
1) for the Experimental EmDrive static force report
2) for the Demonstrator EmDrive static force report
3) for the Demonstrator EmDrive dynamic / rotary test report (which is still to be released)
http://emdrive.com/background.html
In a parliamentary reply on 5 December 2006, Margaret Hodge, the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions stated that funding for this ”pioneering“ project required that “highly qualified technical experts and academics carried out an assessment on behalf of the department“
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061205/text/61205w0031.htm scroll to the bottom
Electromagnetic Relativity Drive
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has provided to the electromagnetic relativity drive design proposed by Roger Shawyer; and from what budget funding has been drawn. [103254]
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 27 November 2006]: Awards have been made to Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd from the DTI’s Small Firms and Enterprise budget.
July 2001—£43,809 paid.
A feasibility study into the application of innovative microwave thruster technology for satellite propulsion. The study involved development of an experimental thruster followed by independent tests and evaluation.
August 2003—£81,291 total grant awarded, £68,399 paid to date.
A follow-on from the above project, to design and develop a demonstration model engine. To be tested on a dynamic test rig, to demonstrate continuous thrust and the conversion of thrust into kinetic energy.
Both grants were awarded against the criteria of the DTI’s Smart scheme that was designed to help fund pioneering and risky R and D projects in small and medium enterprises. Highly qualified technical experts and academics carried out an assessment on behalf of the Department.
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:
There is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed.
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
Not correct.
The 1st funds were for the Experimental EmDrive and to do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 2nd round of funds were to construct the Demonstrator EmDrive and do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 3rd round of funds were to construct the Rotary test rig and conduct dynamic Reaction force generation / acceleration tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
Each funding program was self contained and the claimed results had to be verified.
Have you read the 2 test reports and the independent review's comments?
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:
There is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive
Really? When did he say that?
Here is what he said:
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new approach to a theory of operation is welcome and could be developed into an alternative explanation of operation and derivation of the performance predictions.
Work on the design has progressed well and the development model constructed is much more practical and robust than the experimental model.
This has allowed a much more rigorous test program to be undertaken.
This more extensive test program allows a more direct measurement of performance but in doing so it has raised a few more detailed questions on the operation of the thruster and the test rig.
As I mentioned in my report on the experimental engine an independent test to verify the measurements is an essential part of the review. This has still not been carried out.
The development of an alternative test method was started but was not successfully completed. This should be pursued.
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design
work is undertaken.
There are two possible next steps in the design program which could be taken in parallel.
These are the development of an experimental supeconducting engine and the development of a space qualification engine with a view to an in orbit demonstration. It is recommended that before either of these steps is undertaken a feasibility study is made. The cost of development, qualification and production of a space qualified engine should also be estimated.
As I read his comments, he seems to be suggesting the next steps are building a superconducting EmDrive and the development of a space rated EmDrive plus on orbit testing.
As I seem to remember Roger did build a space rated Flight Thruster, built a superconducting EmDrive and arranged via Boeing to do an on orbit test. Would seem someone followed the reviewers very positive advice.
Here is the bottom line you refuse to accept.
The EmDrive works.
Accept that fact and get over it.
December is not that far away.....................
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:
There is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive
Really? When did he say that?
Here is what he said:
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new approach to a theory of operation is welcome and could be developed into an alternative explanation of operation and derivation of the performance predictions.
Work on the design has progressed well and the development model constructed is much more practical and robust than the experimental model.
This has allowed a much more rigorous test program to be undertaken.
This more extensive test program allows a more direct measurement of performance but in doing so it has raised a few more detailed questions on the operation of the thruster and the test rig.
As I mentioned in my report on the experimental engine an independent test to verify the measurements is an essential part of the review. This has still not been carried out.
The development of an alternative test method was started but was not successfully completed. This should be pursued.
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design
work is undertaken.
There are two possible next steps in the design program which could be taken in parallel.
These are the development of an experimental supeconducting engine and the development of a space qualification engine with a view to an in orbit demonstration. It is recommended that before either of these steps is undertaken a feasibility study is made. The cost of development, qualification and production of a space qualified engine should also be estimated.
Here is the bottom line you refuse to accept.
The EmDrive works.
Accept that fact and get over it.
December is not that far away.....................
You apparently don't understand the words in the quote I posted.
To repeat:
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
This means that this reviewer sees issues with the test data that call into question the validity of the results. This is what "not conclusive" means. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but it means it is wrong to conclude that it definitely works from this data.
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
-
YBCO on Sapphire at 3.85GHz
7.SUPERCONDUCTING DEMONSTRATOR PROGRAMME
The first phase of this programme was an experimental superconducting thruster. This low power, HTS device operates at liquid nitrogen temperature, and is designed for very high Q and consequently high specific thrust.
Image Fig 12 attached
Fig 12 Experimental Superconducting Thruster
Fig 12 shows the thruster, which operates at 3.8 GHz, and was designed using an update of the software used for the previous S band designs. Super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.
Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x10^6 being measured.
Fig 13 shows the surface resistivity of the superconducting thruster based on specified manufacturer’s data, updated for the measured data.
Image Fig 13 attached
Fig 13 Surface Resistivity
This data is from Roger's 2009 paper, so by 2016 and the new patent, I expect his knowledge of YBCO on Sapphire in EmDrives is well advanced.
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive.
-
Interesting Blast from the Past
Seems that when a dielectric is added to the small end of a TE012 resonant cavity, the distribution of the 2 x 1/2 guide waves changes 180 deg.
In a non dielectric frustum the longest guide wavelengths exist at the small diameter end but when a dielectric is inserted there, the longest guide wavelengths move to the big diameter end as attached.
This guide wavelength swap causes a swap in the radiation pressures on the end plates and in the Thrust force vector direction as per the Purple arrows.
There is experimental data to show this does in fact happen.
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
When EW paper is published, we shall probably all open the champagne. There is a big difference saying that no proof has be published, and saying that it is false.
If the emdrive is proven to work in december, it will remains that Shawyer claims are not proof.
Also, in the text that you quote :
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS(...)
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design work is undertaken.
That is exactly what I was saying...
If in a later report it was indicated by a third party that independent test verification had been adressed, please, tell me where.
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive.
Conclusive?
EW / Paul's published and spoken results.
Dave's results.
Shell's results.
Iulian's results.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results.
My results.
3 others I can't share.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
When EW paper is published, we shall probably all open the champagne. There is a big difference saying that no proof has be published, and saying that it is false.
If the emdrive is proven to work in december, it will remains that Shawyer claims are not proof.
Also, in the text that you quote :
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS(...)
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design work is undertaken.
That is exactly what I was saying...
If in a later report it was indicated by a third party that independent test verification had been adressed, please, tell me where.
It is my understand that independent test verification has been done with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as part of the UK Gov's verification program.
I also understand Boeing did their own review and testing of those 2 EmDrives prior to signing the initial agreement with SPR back in 2007, 2 years before they awarded SPR the Flight Thruster build contract.
Plus Roger has stated Boeing did report to SPR that the Flight Thruster design they delivered to Boeing did met the contract conditions.
-
Interesting Blast from the Past
Seems that when a dielectric is added to the small end of a TE012 resonant cavity, the distribution of the 2 x 1/2 guide waves changes 180 deg.
In a non dielectric frustum the longest guide wavelengths exist at the small diameter end but when a dielectric is inserted there, the longest guide wavelengths move to the big diameter end as attached.
This guide wavelength swap causes a swap in the radiation pressures on the end plates and in the Thrust force vector direction as per the Purple arrows.
There is experimental data to show this does in fact happen.
Yes, this (modification of the wave-pattern in the cavity) happens when a dielectric long enough is placed in a cavity, it also happens in a cylindrical cavity. I had posted a long time ago an exact solution for a dielectric in a cylindrical cavity, in discussions with Notsosureofit showing this behavior. This is a result of solving Maxwell's equations with a dielectric insert, but by itself it does not explain why the EM Drive should accelerate in Space with force/inputPower orders of magnitude larger than a photon rocket, the reason for which still remains to be proved.
It does explain that the dielectric will modify the wave-pattern inside the cavity.
One could further modify the wave-pattern by using a multi-layer dielectric, or a functionally-graded dielectric with electric permittivity changing in the longitudinal direction.
So if somebody has a theory to explain acceleration of the EM Drive in Space without any dielectric, this would show that a dielectric could make the force bigger, or smaller, zero, or change its direction, depending on the placement, dimensions and material properties of the dielectric.
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive.
Conclusive?
EW / Paul's published and spoken results.
Dave's results.
Shell's results.
Iulian's results.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results.
My results.
3 others I can't share.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf
EW / Paul's published and spoken results. - not conclusive, this has been discussed thoroughly (Dec. data yet to be seen)
Dave's results. - He would agree not conclusive, and I would point out the accidental control test indicates possibly a null result (but not conclusively null)
Shell's results. - She is not comfortable with her results yet and has not shared them to do thorough test first. (Which is quite reasonable)
Iulian's results. - I haven't seen these.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results. - Shown to be probably convection or similar based on the vacuum results. Also, he straight up says that his results are inconclusive
My results. - which you have not shown even a single picture of your setup. Also, you have raise the bar on yourself significantly for me to trust your results, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what a force is, and are either unable or unwilling to answer 2 simple questions about force balances.
3 others I can't share. - doesn't help.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf - wait until these are released
A series of inconclusive results does not make anything conclusive.
-
It is my understand that independent test verification has been done with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as part of the UK Gov's verification program.
I also understand Boeing did their own review and testing of those 2 EmDrives prior to signing the initial agreement with SPR back in 2007, 2 years before they awarded SPR the Flight Thruster build contract.
Plus Roger has stated Boeing did report to SPR that the Flight Thruster design they delivered to Boeing did met the contract conditions.
These independent verifications tests were not published, Boeing tests were not published.
I don't means that it doesn't exist a proof somewhere. I means that these proofs were not shown or published. So, from my viewpoint, since I do not work for Boeing, it is not proven. I still wait conclusive data to be published. I hope it is for december, but my hopes are on EW, not on Shawyer.
-
It could be laser powered. Then, for power in interstellar space, it could use a magnetic loop and draw off a tiny fraction of its kinetic energy via interacting with the interstellar medium.
Nukes would be helpful, but aren't an absolute necessity. If you're doing more than ~0.04 c your kinetic energy is more than any fission reactor could *ever* supply.
A hypothetical emdrive solar powered craft could accelerate as it traveled towards the outer solar system. But when it got too far from the sun the solar arrays would generate less electricity? An interstellar craft would have to be nuclear powered?
Shawyer claims that the Emdrive gives constant thrust for constant imput power. So, as it has been shown earlier, if it works like this, you can get far more Kinetic Energy (in any inertial reference frame) that the RF imput of the frustrum.
This point has not been proven, because no experiment has ever shown thrust bigger than P/V (P the electrical power and V the speed in the laboratory reference frame)
But, the opposite has also not been proven. Maybe the Emdrive is stealing energy to something else in the universe. For example stealing Kinetic Energy to other bodies, as it is for Gravity Assist. Or stealing Energy to the Quantum Vacuum, or beyond he Rindler Hoziron.
With the hypothesis of The Traveller, a thrust of 1t/Kwrf, a small interstellar probe would be OK with a Pu238 RTG, or several ones for a big probe. The RTG of the Voyager probes was 470W. A few of these would be OK.
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
doesn't the scientific method demand independent third parties be able to reproduce the results before it can be verified? an experiment needs to be described clearly with apparatus and instructions. this allows anybody to follow the instructions and achieve the same result. this is more difficult in the case of commercially sensitive or state of the art where the scientist is either withholding vital experiment data or a large budget is required for apparatus. the members of the forum are trying to get to a stage where they can consistently and reliably reproduce any amount of thrust. no small task IMHO
That depends. The Wright brothers didn't need some third party to independently build and fly a plane to scientifically prove their machine worked. Though some believed them right away, most didn't. They needed to fly in front of people and they did but it took till 1908 for enough people to see it to reach a critical point. Their acclaim then happened very suddenly five years after their initial flight. Likewise, when Shawyer announces significant thrust with superconducting EmDrives I would be included to take his word.
-
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results,
I found this information about experiments with Neoprene nowhere, at least not in the Brady et al., 2014 publication. Is it from 'personal communication'?
Thanks,
Peter
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
Are you serious ? I had hope that you could understand the many explanations that were made about CoE.
The thrust does not necessary diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane multiply it's speed by ten, because it's efficiency can eventually be higher at a higher speed, and the gravity losses needs to be taken into account.
But, considering a motor that has a constant efficiency, and not gravity, of course, it gives a thrust inversely proportional to the speed in the reference frame you are pushing against. It is basic physics. And a motor that has non constant efficiency always will give you a thrust inferior to P/V in the reference frame you are pushing against.
Of course, what complicate the example is that when the plane lifts off, there are much gravity losses.
So accelerating to 10m/s is not much compared to these gravity loses.
Since the Emdrive is new physics, I can understand the claims of constant thrust for constant power, and with mechanical power exceding the power imput. But with classical engines pushing against air, no way. :P
Also, please, note this important point. The limit P/V does not means, in fact, that the thrust is inversely proportional to the speed. That only means that the thrust best limit is inversely proportional to the speed. But what interests us here is the limit. If your motor is bad at low speed, it can in fact keep the same thrust.
For example, a photon rocket has a terrible efficiency at zero speed. In fact, no work at all. All the energy is lost. The thrust of a photon rocket is not decreasing with speed, because it is already bad enough, it will never exceed P/V. So, the efficiency of a photon rocket is increasing when the speed is increasing in the laboratory reference frame. That keeps the thrust constant. Low but constant.
If you calculate the drag of your little airplane, you can verify easily that the thrust is never superior to P/V (the speed has to be calculated in the reference frame of the air, so the wind has to be taken into account)
-
Interesting Blast from the Past
Seems that when a dielectric is added to the small end of a TE012 resonant cavity, the distribution of the 2 x 1/2 guide waves changes 180 deg.
In a non dielectric frustum the longest guide wavelengths exist at the small diameter end but when a dielectric is inserted there, the longest guide wavelengths move to the big diameter end as attached.
This guide wavelength swap causes a swap in the radiation pressures on the end plates and in the Thrust force vector direction as per the Purple arrows.
There is experimental data to show this does in fact happen.
Yes, this (modification of the wave-pattern in the cavity) happens when a dielectric long enough is placed in a cavity, it also happens in a cylindrical cavity. I had posted a long time ago an exact solution for a dielectric in a cylindrical cavity, in discussions with Notsosureofit showing this behavior. This is a result of solving Maxwell's equations with a dielectric insert, but by itself it does not explain why the EM Drive should accelerate in Space with force/inputPower orders of magnitude larger than a photon rocket, the reason for which still remains to be proved.
It does explain that the dielectric will modify the wave-pattern inside the cavity.
One could further modify the wave-pattern by using a multi-layer dielectric, or a functionally-graded dielectric with electric permittivity changing in the longitudinal direction.
So if somebody has a theory to explain acceleration of the EM Drive in Space without any dielectric, this would show that a dielectric could make the force bigger, or smaller, zero, or change its direction, depending on the placement, dimensions and material properties of the dielectric.
It's almost like the dielectric acts as part of a 'throttle.'
-
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results,
I found this information about experiments with Neoprene nowhere, at least not in the Brady et al., 2014 publication. Is it from 'personal communication'?
Thanks,
Peter
It was communicated by Star-Drive in previous NSF threads: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2074
due to the not very user-friendly Search facility at NSF, one would have to go through 35 pages of his posts, to find that information
I found this one (just one of several posts on this topic):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1354582#msg1354582
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
No, the faster the plane is moving relative to the air, the more power it takes to accelerate the air to produce the same force. Drag is an additional effect. Doing the calculations in different frames (the rest frame of the air, or some other constant velocity frame) will all lead to the same conclusion that the power required to generate a constant force varies with the speed of the air relative to the plane. (which is independent of reference frame, because it is the difference of velocities, so all calculate the same power and force, and that power/ force varies with airspeed.)
Example (using a discrete event instead of continuous to make it easier to follow, so energy (E) instead of power, change in momentum (Δp) instead of force. Subscript a means air, p means plane, 1 means initial, 2 means final.
conservation of momentum:
ma*va1 + mp*vp1 = ma*va2 + mp*vp2
Δp = -ma*(va2 - va1 ) = mp*(vp2 - vp1 )
conservation of energy:
0.5*ma*va12 + 0.5*mp*vp12 + E = 0.5*ma*va22 + 0.5*mp*vp22
Rearrange to solve for E, group the terms, and apply a2-b2 = (a+b)(a-b) pull out the parts which are equal to Δp, and you get:
E = 0.5*Δp*( (vp2 - va2) + (vp1 - va1) )
Therefore, for a constant change in the plane's momentum, the engine needs to output more energy if the plane's airspeed is higher, and all frames agree on this amount of energy, since it comes from frame-independent potential energy (chemical/electrical).
In any real system, there are many other complications (temperature changes, motor efficiency as function of RPM etc.), but this effect will still be there.
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed. ;D
Not correct.
The 1st funds were for the Experimental EmDrive and to do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 2nd round of funds were to construct the Demonstrator EmDrive and do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 3rd round of funds were to construct the Rotary test rig and conduct dynamic Reaction force generation / acceleration tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
Each funding program was self contained and the claimed results had to be verified.
Have you read the 2 test reports and the independent review's comments?
This is all ancient history; more than 10 years old. Shawyer has not proven anything conclusive despite all the UK taxpayer money he has spent. He wasn't able to convince those who funded his research of over 10 years ago that he could create a force with microwave power using room temperature materials so why should anyone believe an em-drive made from high temperature superconductors (HTS) would work? The goal should be to provide proof of this theory as it was originally stated. Shawyer should provide conclusive proof the em-drive produces thrust. There have been a lot of claims but no proof to any of these claims. I think it's good that people are experimenting. We all have to be skeptical; especially the experimenter.
-
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results,
I found this information about experiments with Neoprene nowhere, at least not in the Brady et al., 2014 publication. Is it from 'personal communication'?
Thanks,
Peter
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1378069#msg1378069
Shell
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
Would you please make it clear that the "41N/kWrf", "145N/kWrf", "~10,000N/kWrf", "143kg/6kWrf", "234N/kWrf" are all speculated based on Q and are not actually measured? I think many may not read carefully enough and may get incorrect impression.
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
Would you please make it clear that the "41N/kWrf", "145N/kWrf", "~10,000N/kWrf", "143kg/6kWrf", "234N/kWrf" are all speculated based on Q and are not actually measured? I think many may not read carefully enough and may get incorrect impression.
The Qu of 6.8x10^6 and Rs of 78 uOhm for the YBCO on Sapphire thin film at 77K and 3.83GHz are experimentally measured values.
There are established equations that link the other values together. One follows the other as does Ohm's law. Shall I then question every Ohm's law calculation because it has not been experimentally measured?
Roger measured the Qu in his 1st experimental YBCO EmDrive and then measured the surface resistance change vs temp at 3.82GHz. It is simple math to do the calc at other values of Rs once the Qu vs Rs at one temp is known.
This is known as EmDrive Engineering 101.
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
In Shawyer's paper he states the surface resistivity data is "based on specified manufacturer's data" (quoted from his paper). In all probability he does not possess any of the sapphire substrate HTS described in his paper and he has not built the device you describe as "an experimental HTS thruster" There are thousands of papers published every year devoted to esoteric measurements of small sections of HTS in carefully controlled laboratory setups. Shawyer has extrapolated from that with his claim an HTS em-drive thruster is possible and you have taken a much bigger leap by claiming he has built "an experimental HTS thruster".
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
In Shawyer's paper he states the surface resistivity data is "based on specified manufacturer's data" (quoted from his paper). In all probability he does not possess any of the sapphire substrate HTS described in his paper and he has not built the device you describe as "an experimental HTS thruster" There are thousands of papers published every year devoted to esoteric measurements of small sections of HTS in carefully controlled laboratory setups. Shawyer has extrapolated from that with his claim an HTS em-drive thruster is possible and you have taken a much bigger leap by claiming he has built "an experimental HTS thruster".
He states he built an Experimental cryo YBCO on Sapphire EmDrive thruster. Even shared a photo.
Minus the 2 images (Fig 12 and Fig 13) here is what Roger wrote:
7.SUPERCONDUCTING DEMONSTRATOR PROGRAMME
The first phase of this programme was an experimental superconducting thruster. This low power, HTS device operates at liquid nitrogen temperature, and is designed for very high Q and consequently high specific thrust.
Fig 12 Experimental Superconducting Thruster as attached
Fig 12 shows the thruster, which operates at 3.8 GHz, and was designed using an update of the software used for the previous S band designs. Super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.
Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x10^6 being measured.
Fig 13 shows the surface resistivity of the superconducting thruster based on specified manufacturer’s data, updated for the measured data.
Fig 13 Surface Resistivity as attached.
For the Demonstrator Thruster, cooling will be by liquid hydrogen. The design resistivity at 20deg K is therefore taken as 11.8 x 10-6 Ohms. This value was then used in the same design software used for the experimental 2G thruster. The resulting thrust was calculated as 143kg for 6kW input.
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
No, the faster the plane is moving relative to the air, the more power it takes to accelerate the air to produce the same force. Drag is an additional effect. Doing the calculations in different frames (the rest frame of the air, or some other constant velocity frame) will all lead to the same conclusion that the power required to generate a constant force varies with the speed of the air relative to the plane. (which is independent of reference frame, because it is the difference of velocities, so all calculate the same power and force, and that power/ force varies with airspeed.)
Example (using a discrete event instead of continuous to make it easier to follow, so energy (E) instead of power, change in momentum (Δp) instead of force. Subscript a means air, p means plane, 1 means initial, 2 means final.
conservation of momentum:
ma*va1 + mp*vp1 = ma*va2 + mp*vp2
Δp = -ma*(va2 - va1 ) = mp*(vp2 - vp1 )
conservation of energy:
0.5*ma*va12 + 0.5*mp*vp12 + E = 0.5*ma*va22 + 0.5*mp*vp22
Rearrange to solve for E, group the terms, and apply a2-b2 = (a+b)(a-b) pull out the parts which are equal to Δp, and you get:
E = 0.5*Δp*( (vp2 - va2) + (vp1 - va1) )
Therefore, for a constant change in the plane's momentum, the engine needs to output more energy if the plane's airspeed is higher, and all frames agree on this amount of energy, since it comes from frame-independent potential energy (chemical/electrical).
In any real system, there are many other complications (temperature changes, motor efficiency as function of RPM etc.), but this effect will still be there.
No, the engine puts out a fixed power and thrust. The plane then accelerates to its max speed for that power and is in a steady state. It's all very simple but you're over complicating it. According to you, the thrust drops the instant the plane moves. Not true. But this isn't a perfect example since the air defines a fixed frame.
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
Are you serious ? I had hope that you could understand the many explanations that were made about CoE.
The thrust does not necessary diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane multiply it's speed by ten, because it's efficiency can eventually be higher at a higher speed, and the gravity losses needs to be taken into account.
But, considering a motor that has a constant efficiency, and not gravity, of course, it gives a thrust inversely proportional to the speed in the reference frame you are pushing against. It is basic physics. And a motor that has non constant efficiency always will give you a thrust inferior to P/V in the reference frame you are pushing against.
Of course, what complicate the example is that when the plane lifts off, there are much gravity losses.
So accelerating to 10m/s is not much compared to these gravity loses.
Since the Emdrive is new physics, I can understand the claims of constant thrust for constant power, and with mechanical power exceding the power imput. But with classical engines pushing against air, no way. :P
Also, please, note this important point. The limit P/V does not means, in fact, that the thrust is inversely proportional to the speed. That only means that the thrust best limit is inversely proportional to the speed. But what interests us here is the limit. If your motor is bad at low speed, it can in fact keep the same thrust.
For example, a photon rocket has a terrible efficiency at zero speed. In fact, no work at all. All the energy is lost. The thrust of a photon rocket is not decreasing with speed, because it is already bad enough, it will never exceed P/V. So, the efficiency of a photon rocket is increasing when the speed is increasing in the laboratory reference frame. That keeps the thrust constant. Low but constant.
If you calculate the drag of your little airplane, you can verify easily that the thrust is never superior to P/V (the speed has to be calculated in the reference frame of the air, so the wind has to be taken into account)
The basic point is that you say the EmDrive, if it works at all, will stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. You're claiming you know Shawyer, Fetta and anyone else who shows a fixed thrust for a fixed electrical power doesn't understand how physics works if they claim that acceleration will just continue. Myself and others believe if it works at all, nothing can limit the acceleration since all observer frames are arbitrary. I believe the energy conundrum is only an apparent violation.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force which is the point Woodward made.
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
If he measured such a large force why can't he just say that? It seems such a large force would knock over his apparatus.
-
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force.
If the EmDrive works by "pushing" against something (i.e. some unknown field or other objects in the universe via gravity assist), it perfectly "knows" its velocity relative to the medium/objects it's pushing against. And just like with any other "pushing" mechanism, the higher your velocity, the harder it is to push. This is required for CoM/CoE to be observed, as has been explained multiple times in this thread.
-
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force.
If the EmDrive works by "pushing" against something (i.e. some unknown field or other objects in the universe via gravity assist), it perfectly "knows" its velocity relative to the medium/objects it's pushing against. And just like with any other "pushing" mechanism, the higher your velocity, the harder it is to push. This is required for CoM/CoE to be observed, as has been explained multiple times in this thread.
You've just defined a fixed absolute frame for the universe, something Relativity forbids. What would be required for CoM/CoE preservation is that the pushing is the same in all frames. In effect, every frame is equivalent and can be "pushed" against equally. Every frame of the universe must be the Center of Momentum frame.
-
You've just defined a fixed absolute frame for the universe, something Relativity forbids.
This is a misunderstanding of the principle of relativity. If you were in a 100% closed ref frame not interacting with the outside world, you wouldn't be able to tell whether you're moving or not. However, the primary (and only?) way for devices like EmDrive to not violate CoM/CoE is to interact with the outside world (i.e. fields, galaxies, etc). There is an "absolute" frame in which the cosmic background radiation is "at rest". By measuring the CMB, you can tell how you're moving relative to that frame.
-
You've just defined a fixed absolute frame for the universe, something Relativity forbids.
This is a misunderstanding of the principle of relativity. If you were in a 100% closed ref frame not interacting with the outside world, you wouldn't be able to tell whether you're moving or not. However, the primary (and only?) way for devices like EmDrive to not violate CoM/CoE is to interact with the outside world (i.e. fields, galaxies, etc). There is an "absolute" frame in which the cosmic background radiation is "at rest". By measuring the CMB, you can tell how you're moving relative to that frame.
The CMB does not define an absolute reference frame of the universe in the sense you want. I'm not saying there is no interaction with the universe, just that the CMB is not some absolute frame that defines that interaction. Whatever the interactions, it's not going to be frame dependent. It's going to be invariant.
Think of that interaction like a magic rocket that has a fixed thrust but never runs out of fuel and never losses mass. There is always an exhaust to react against and every frame validates CoE and CoM.
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
No, the faster the plane is moving relative to the air, the more power it takes to accelerate the air to produce the same force. Drag is an additional effect. Doing the calculations in different frames (the rest frame of the air, or some other constant velocity frame) will all lead to the same conclusion that the power required to generate a constant force varies with the speed of the air relative to the plane. (which is independent of reference frame, because it is the difference of velocities, so all calculate the same power and force, and that power/ force varies with airspeed.)
Example (using a discrete event instead of continuous to make it easier to follow, so energy (E) instead of power, change in momentum (Δp) instead of force. Subscript a means air, p means plane, 1 means initial, 2 means final.
conservation of momentum:
ma*va1 + mp*vp1 = ma*va2 + mp*vp2
Δp = -ma*(va2 - va1 ) = mp*(vp2 - vp1 )
conservation of energy:
0.5*ma*va12 + 0.5*mp*vp12 + E = 0.5*ma*va22 + 0.5*mp*vp22
Rearrange to solve for E, group the terms, and apply a2-b2 = (a+b)(a-b) pull out the parts which are equal to Δp, and you get:
E = 0.5*Δp*( (vp2 - va2) + (vp1 - va1) )
Therefore, for a constant change in the plane's momentum, the engine needs to output more energy if the plane's airspeed is higher, and all frames agree on this amount of energy, since it comes from frame-independent potential energy (chemical/electrical).
In any real system, there are many other complications (temperature changes, motor efficiency as function of RPM etc.), but this effect will still be there.
No, the engine puts out a fixed power and thrust. The plane then accelerates to its max speed for that power and is in a steady state. It's all very simple but you're over complicating it. According to you, the thrust drops the instant the plane moves. Not true. But this isn't a perfect example since the air defines a fixed frame.
Overcomplicating? I literally described the simplest ideal case of a vehicle pushing on a medium to accelerate, and showed that your assertion of fixed power for fixed thrust is false. Repeating your basic assertion that I just disproved shows a complete lack of comprehension on your part.
"According to you, the thrust drops the instant the plane moves." - No, not according to me. According to basic mechanics, as the plane's velocity relative to the air increases, either the generated force decreases, the power delivered to the motor increases, or something in between.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force.
If the EmDrive works by "pushing" against something (i.e. some unknown field or other objects in the universe via gravity assist), it perfectly "knows" its velocity relative to the medium/objects it's pushing against. And just like with any other "pushing" mechanism, the higher your velocity, the harder it is to push. This is required for CoM/CoE to be observed, as has been explained multiple times in this thread.
You've just defined a fixed absolute frame for the universe, something Relativity forbids. What would be required for CoM/CoE preservation is that the pushing is the same in all frames. In effect, every frame is equivalent and can be "pushed" against equally. Every frame of the universe must be the Center of Momentum frame.
You don't push against frames. If there is some medium that the emDrive pushes against (lets just say dark matter for now), than the work required to push against the dark matter depends on the relative velocity between the drive and the dark matter, which creates the "special frame" of the medium (the local dark matter rest frame) This kind of special frame is allowed by special relativity, just like the frame of the air is a special frame for an airplane.
Your continued search for a better than photon rocket constant force/power system is getting tiring, since it has been shown multiple times and ways that this simply does not work in Newtonian Mechanics or special relativity.
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
No, the faster the plane is moving relative to the air, the more power it takes to accelerate the air to produce the same force. Drag is an additional effect. Doing the calculations in different frames (the rest frame of the air, or some other constant velocity frame) will all lead to the same conclusion that the power required to generate a constant force varies with the speed of the air relative to the plane. (which is independent of reference frame, because it is the difference of velocities, so all calculate the same power and force, and that power/ force varies with airspeed.)
Example (using a discrete event instead of continuous to make it easier to follow, so energy (E) instead of power, change in momentum (Δp) instead of force. Subscript a means air, p means plane, 1 means initial, 2 means final.
conservation of momentum:
ma*va1 + mp*vp1 = ma*va2 + mp*vp2
Δp = -ma*(va2 - va1 ) = mp*(vp2 - vp1 )
conservation of energy:
0.5*ma*va12 + 0.5*mp*vp12 + E = 0.5*ma*va22 + 0.5*mp*vp22
Rearrange to solve for E, group the terms, and apply a2-b2 = (a+b)(a-b) pull out the parts which are equal to Δp, and you get:
E = 0.5*Δp*( (vp2 - va2) + (vp1 - va1) )
Therefore, for a constant change in the plane's momentum, the engine needs to output more energy if the plane's airspeed is higher, and all frames agree on this amount of energy, since it comes from frame-independent potential energy (chemical/electrical).
In any real system, there are many other complications (temperature changes, motor efficiency as function of RPM etc.), but this effect will still be there.
No, the engine puts out a fixed power and thrust. The plane then accelerates to its max speed for that power and is in a steady state. It's all very simple but you're over complicating it. According to you, the thrust drops the instant the plane moves. Not true. But this isn't a perfect example since the air defines a fixed frame.
Overcomplicating? I literally described the simplest ideal case of a vehicle pushing on a medium to accelerate, and showed that your assertion of fixed power for fixed thrust is false. Repeating your basic assertion that I just disproved shows a complete lack of comprehension on your part.
"According to you, the thrust drops the instant the plane moves." - No, not according to me. According to basic mechanics, as the plane's velocity relative to the air increases, either the generated force decreases, the power delivered to the motor increases, or something in between.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force.
If the EmDrive works by "pushing" against something (i.e. some unknown field or other objects in the universe via gravity assist), it perfectly "knows" its velocity relative to the medium/objects it's pushing against. And just like with any other "pushing" mechanism, the higher your velocity, the harder it is to push. This is required for CoM/CoE to be observed, as has been explained multiple times in this thread.
You've just defined a fixed absolute frame for the universe, something Relativity forbids. What would be required for CoM/CoE preservation is that the pushing is the same in all frames. In effect, every frame is equivalent and can be "pushed" against equally. Every frame of the universe must be the Center of Momentum frame.
You don't push against frames. If there is some medium that the emDrive pushes against (lets just say dark matter for now), than the work required to push against the dark matter depends on the relative velocity between the drive and the dark matter, which creates the "special frame" of the medium (the local dark matter rest frame) This kind of special frame is allowed by special relativity, just like the frame of the air is a special frame for an airplane.
Your continued search for a better than photon rocket constant force/power system is getting tiring, since it has been shown multiple times and ways that this simply does not work in Newtonian Mechanics or special relativity.
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
-
The problem is that the interpretation depends on the relative viewpoint / observing from a defined relative reference frame. (Even it is one who is accelerated itselfs. Everything is relative. )
http://www2.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/teachers/massenergy.pdf ::)
Nevertheless any accelerating device have to satisfy GR (plus CoM & CoE), not only SR as suggested by R.Shawyer.
Till now it's on of the best proven theories we have until it's maybe replaced by a more complete one sometime in the future.
-
The basic point is that you say the EmDrive, if it works at all, will stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. You're claiming you know Shawyer, Fetta and anyone else who shows a fixed thrust for a fixed electrical power doesn't understand how physics works if they claim that acceleration will just continue. Myself and others believe if it works at all, nothing can limit the acceleration since all observer frames are arbitrary. I believe the energy conundrum is only an apparent violation.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force which is the point Woodward made.
What you claim as a basic point from me is a total mistake about what I have repeated, including in preceding answers to you. I am deeply disappointed that it happens after so many exchanges.
I never claimed that the Emdrive would necessary stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. I have claimed that if the Emdrive doesn't steal energy to something else, and still gives constant thrust for constant imput power, it breaks CoE. I also repeated several times the example of Gravity Assist, what is a perfect example of stolen Energy, and had been precedently used by Dr Rodal.
How can you remove this condition ?
Also, even if this condition was no satisfied, I had written that it would break CoE. Not that it was impossible. The only thing that I consider, in the context of these threads to be impossible to break are the maths and the logic.
Also, I do not understand how you can consider than a ship with a small 200kVe generator coming back on the earth after 20 years of space travel, and making an impact and releasing the energy of 5 million Hiroshima bombs without having stolen energy to anything else is only an apparent violation ? What do you need to make a violation not only apparent ? destroying the entire solar system with the energy of a battery AAA ?
You think There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle.
It depends of how it works.
For example, if the Emdrive is a way of pusing against distant masses, with a new interaction, the emdrive could "know" it's Kinetic Energy just like a car knows it's Kinetic energy when pushing against the road, or a maglev train "knows" it's Kinetic energy relatively to the rail.
If the emdrive is a way of pushing against Dark matter, and if the movement applies to dark matter, the Kinetic energy in the referential of the dark matter the Emdrive is pushing against will be relevant.
Etc.
The claim that the emdrive can give thrust superior to P/V in any inertial reference frame closes these possible theories. How do you know that these theories are impossible ?
-
...Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
I googled for "vacuum breakdown voltage" a while ago, and read that it's difficult to do better than 100MW in a resonant (superconducting accelerator) cavity. 10^3 watts and 10^9 Q gives you around 10^12 watts. So I guess the good news is, with heroic effort, a 10N thruster can be powered by a wifi transmitter.
Another consideration is acceleration. If the Q is 10^9 and frequency 10^9 Hz, the bandwidth is around 1 Hz, hence the maximum acceleration around 1 m/s^2.
But 10^7 - 10^8 seems a reasonable maximum attainable Q, even with heroic effort. So even as a believer, I hardly expect to see hover-cars using Shawyer's technology.
Perhaps Bose-Einstein condensate in some new material.
-
Interesting data from Roger's 2009 paper on his Experimental YBCO thruster where he published experimentally measured surface resistance data for YBCO on Sapphire data at 3.83GHz. He also stated the experimentally measured Qu was 6.8x10^6, cooled with LN2, which would produce a specific force of 41N/kWrf, increasing to 145N/kWrf if cooled by LHe.
I then plotted the results for cooling with LH2 and LHe as attached.
He further states in the paper that the data was from his 1st Experimental cryo EmDrive and that he has moving to build a Demonstrator EmDrive, following the development process and names of the non cryo EmDrives.
That was in 2009. Now in late 2016 Roger has released a radical cryo EmDrive, that based on the cavity TC from the Force generation curves, would have a Ql of ~3x10^9 and specific force of ~10,000N/kWrf. Seems Roger has been busy.
Several here have stated YBCO will not work at microwave frequencies. Seems their opinion may need to be updated.
143kg/6kWrf is a specific force of 234N/kWrf which is not that far above the 145N/kWrf figure for LHe cooling of the Experimental cryo EmDrive data.
Would you please make it clear that the "41N/kWrf", "145N/kWrf", "~10,000N/kWrf", "143kg/6kWrf", "234N/kWrf" are all speculated based on Q and are not actually measured? I think many may not read carefully enough and may get incorrect impression.
The Qu of 6.8x10^6 and Rs of 78 uOhm for the YBCO on Sapphire thin film at 77K and 3.83GHz are experimentally measured values.
There are established equations that link the other values together. One follows the other as does Ohm's law. Shall I then question every Ohm's law calculation because it has not been experimentally measured?
Roger measured the Qu in his 1st experimental YBCO EmDrive and then measured the surface resistance change vs temp at 3.82GHz. It is simple math to do the calc at other values of Rs once the Qu vs Rs at one temp is known.
This is known as EmDrive Engineering 101.
Does Roger have resistance measurements for his YBCO coating on sapphire for DC? It should go to exactly zero at the critical temperature. The plot showing reduced RF impedance at reduced cryogenic temperatures is, um, suspect. Please confirm.
-
I caught some flack for making Q a variable of the coordinates inside the frustum. So here are the thrust and group velocity equations using the damping factor instead, which is an acceptable variable function of the coordinates inside the frustum. Now, the thrust is proportional to Q, but it is also proportional to the 4-gradient of the damping potential.
Todd
-
In Shawyer's paper he states the surface resistivity data is "based on specified manufacturer's data" (quoted from his paper). In all probability he does not possess any of the sapphire substrate HTS described in his paper and he has not built the device you describe as "an experimental HTS thruster" There are thousands of papers published every year devoted to esoteric measurements of small sections of HTS in carefully controlled laboratory setups. Shawyer has extrapolated from that with his claim an HTS em-drive thruster is possible and you have taken a much bigger leap by claiming he has built "an experimental HTS thruster".
He states he built an Experimental cryo YBCO on Sapphire EmDrive thruster. Even shared a photo.
Minus the 2 images (Fig 12 and Fig 13) here is what Roger wrote:
7.SUPERCONDUCTING DEMONSTRATOR PROGRAMME
The first phase of this programme was an experimental superconducting thruster. This low power, HTS device operates at liquid nitrogen temperature, and is designed for very high Q and consequently high specific thrust.
Fig 12 Experimental Superconducting Thruster as attached
Fig 12 shows the thruster, which operates at 3.8 GHz, and was designed using an update of the software used for the previous S band designs. Super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.
Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x10^6 being measured.
Fig 13 shows the surface resistivity of the superconducting thruster based on specified manufacturer’s data, updated for the measured data.
Fig 13 Surface Resistivity as attached.
For the Demonstrator Thruster, cooling will be by liquid hydrogen. The design resistivity at 20deg K is therefore taken as 11.8 x 10-6 Ohms. This value was then used in the same design software used for the experimental 2G thruster. The resulting thrust was calculated as 143kg for 6kW input.
At DC HTS cooled below 77 K has a resistance very close to zero Ohms. Superconductivity is not absolute. Temperature, current, and magnetic fields all limit the superconductivity as shown in the figure below. In the diagram to the left one axis is temperature, another current, and the third the magnetic around the HTS. Superconductivity exists only inside the bubble. And AC or microwave energy introduces a loss mechanism in HTS.
(http://www.enea.it/it/pubblicazioni/img-eai/n.-3-2012/1celentano.jpg)
Surface resistivity measurements at microwave frequencies are high when compared to the DC resistance of superconductors. These measurements are done with very low RF power levels. Higher RF power would introduce self heating from the RF losses destroying the superconductivity. Superconductor physics is a lot more complicated than simply applying Ohm's law to one or two points and extrapolating.
http://www.enea.it/it/pubblicazioni/EAI/anno-2012/n.-3-maggio-giugno-2012/high-temperature-superconductivity-challenges-and-perspectives-for-electric-power-applications
-
Correction
Superconducting cavities use a different equation to calculate Rs (Surface Resistance) than metal cavities. This means that while in a metal cavity Q scales with the square of the metal conductivity. in a superconducting cavity Q scales linear with Rs changes.
This means my chart showing calculated Q and specific force at different YBCO on Sapphire temperatures assumed Rs vs Q square scaling and was too low. I have attached the revised chart, which reflects Q scaling linear as Rs alters.
I also have data that suggests as of 2014, YBCO substrates had achieved 11uOhm Rs at 3.83GHz as against Roger's 2009 78uOhm Rs at 3.83GHz, which would increase the attached Q and specific forces ~7x.
Based on the 2014 RS data and the resultant Rs at LHe temps the Q is calculated to be 6.2x10^8 which is not that far from the 3x10^9 Q as calculated from the new patents 5x TC force curves. The 3.83GHz Rs only needs to drop to 2.3uOhm to achieve that Q.
All of which does support Roger's new EmDrive design may truly be capable of 1,000kg/kWrf specific force.
Updated calculations attached.
-
Surface resistivity measurements at microwave frequencies are high when compared to the DC resistance of superconductors. These measurements are done with very low RF power levels. Higher RF power would introduce self heating from the RF losses destroying the superconductivity. Superconductor physics is a lot more complicated than simply applying Ohm's law to one or two points and extrapolating.
Of course there needs to be sufficient thermal heat sinking capability in the cooling system to handle any cavity heating so to keep the HTS in a superconducting state.
Likewise as to the max H field before the superconducting state is exited.
Have found examples of HST cavities that are filled with Rf energy way higher than what would be pumped into a EmDrive. In fact as the cavity Q climbs and the specific force generated climbs, the Rf energy needed to produce force X drops and does the resultant cavity heating.
It is EmDrive Engineering 101 that works out the needed cavity energy to achieve force X and keep the HST cooled and operating below it's max H field intensity.
All doable. Just engineering.
-
I caught some flack for making Q a variable of the coordinates inside the frustum. So here are the thrust and group velocity equations using the damping factor instead, which is an acceptable variable function of the coordinates inside the frustum. Now, the thrust is proportional to Q, but it is also proportional to the 4-gradient of the damping potential.
Todd
Todd,
You may find it interesting, some information I recently became aware of.
Seems if a dielectric is placed in the small end of the frustum, the Thrust force vector is big to small. However if you remove the dielectric, the Thrust force vector alters 180 deg to small to big and increases ~3-4x the dielectric Thrust force.
This is the same non dielectric Thrust vector direction as Roger measured in his detailed non dielectric Demonstrator report.
To make that clear:
Dielectric @ small end, Thrust force vector Big >>> Small
No dielectric, Thrust force vector Small >>> Big, same cavity as above, 3-4x dielectric Thrust force value
Thrust force is a static force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum, is there all the time there is resonant Rf in the cavity and doesn't need free acceleration to be measured.
I trust the data source.
-
......
Thrust force is a static force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum, is there all the time there is resonant Rf in the cavity and doesn't need free acceleration to be measured.
.....
You come up again with that concept of 'force-less free acceleration'. I believe Shawyer also talks about it. It would be the most revolutionary thing to emerge from the EMdrive, doesn't it?
To me it merely sounds like an excuse to explain null-results of experiments. Even gravitation acts as a force. It is very hard to imagine what the nature of such a 'force-free acceleration' would be.
Cheers, Peter
-
......
Thrust force is a static force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum, is there all the time there is resonant Rf in the cavity and doesn't need free acceleration to be measured.
.....
You come up again with that concept of 'force-less free acceleration'. I believe Shawyer also talks about it. It would be the most revolutionary thing to emerge from the EMdrive, doesn't it?
To me it merely sounds like an excuse to explain null-results of experiments. Even gravitation acts as a force. It is very hard to imagine what the nature of such a 'force-free acceleration' would be.
Cheers, Peter
The EmDrive generates 2 forces:
1) Static Thrust force which is generated by the guide wavelength variation with changing cavity diameter. The Thrust force vector follows longer guide wavelength to shorter guide wavelength direction in the resonant cavity. In a non dielectric cavity, the Thrust force vector is small to big end. It has been measured by many experimenters using a scale or a torsion pendulum, which is just a fancy scale. No movement of the cavity is required for the Thrust force to be generated. Well Ok a little movement happens as all scale like devices have a spring constant.
2) Accelerative Reaction force, which is equal in value but opposite in force vector to the Thrust force. It can only be measured via A = F/M on a rotary test rig or linear test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Most EmDrive experimenters measure the static Thrust force.
I know of only 2 EmDrive experiments that have measured the accelerative Reaction force. One being Roger's 2006 Demonstrator testing on a rotary air bearing test rig and another that I can't share but has very high credibility. I'm working to make that 3.
Both of these forces can and have been measured, but not at the same time, including the Thrust force vector change that happens when you add a dielectric to the small end of the cavity.
Now we need a theory that predicts what has been physically measured. So far Roger's is the closest I know of.
-
......
Thrust force is a static force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum, is there all the time there is resonant Rf in the cavity and doesn't need free acceleration to be measured.
.....
You come up again with that concept of 'force-less free acceleration'. I believe Shawyer also talks about it. It would be the most revolutionary thing to emerge from the EMdrive, doesn't it?
To me it merely sounds like an excuse to explain null-results of experiments. Even gravitation acts as a force. It is very hard to imagine what the nature of such a 'force-free acceleration' would be.
Cheers, Peter
The EmDrive generates 2 forces:
1) Static Thrust force which is generated by the guide wavelength variation with changing cavity diameter. The Thrust force vector follows longer guide wavelength to shorter guide wavelength direction in the resonant cavity. In a non dielectric cavity, the Thrust force vector is small to big end. It has been measured by many experimenters using a scale or a torsion pendulum, which is just a fancy scale. No movement of the cavity is required for the Thrust force to be generated. Well Ok a little movement happens as all scale like devices have a spring constant.
2) Accelerative Reaction force, which is equal in value but opposite in force vector to the Thrust force. It can only be measured via A = F/M on a rotary test rig or linear test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Most EmDrive experimenters measure the static Thrust force.
I know of only 2 EmDrive experiments that have measured the accelerative Reaction force. One being Roger's 2006 Demonstrator testing on a rotary air bearing test rig and another that I can't share but has very high credibility. I'm working to make that 3.
Both of these forces can and have been measured, but not at the same time, including the Thrust force vector change that happens when you add a dielectric to the small end of the cavity.
Now we need a theory that predicts what has been physically measured. So far Roger's is the closest I know of.
But does this 'Accelerative Reaction force' emerge from Roger's 'theory' ? (the image I have of his theory is that he explains it from the imbalance of forces of reflected EM waves on the inside of the cavity. The addition of this Accelerative Reaction force seems rather artificial then.)
Good that you are doing experiments to prove the existence of these forces. I'm curious (but showing a movie on youtube with a moving device on an air bearing bed will probably not convince me (I do not trust my own eyes). I would have to do extensive tests with it myself.)
But it certainly a good thing that there are 'believers' (excusez le mot) and sceptics on this forum! We should not avoid though discussions. (when I started to set up a replication experiment I was for 99.9% certain it was all due to heat effects and magnetic fields, etc. Now I would set that to 90%. So my believe in the possibility that there really is an anomalous effect already increased 100-fold!). '-)
Keep up the good work.
Peter
-
But it certainly a good thing that there are 'believers' (excusez le mot) and sceptics on this forum! We should not avoid though discussions. (when I started to set up a replication experiment I was for 99.9% certain it was all due to heat effects and magnetic fields, etc. Now I would set that to 90%. So my believe in the possibility that there really is an anomalous effect already increased 100-fold!). '-)
Keep up the good work.
Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks.
Very soon I trust that will be 0% doubt.
-
SPR filed a document at Companies House yesterday, dated 21-Oct. It confirms no changes to shareholdings since 21-Oct-15, the death of one of the minor shareholders notwithstanding.
-
......
Thrust force is a static force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum, is there all the time there is resonant Rf in the cavity and doesn't need free acceleration to be measured.
.....
You come up again with that concept of 'force-less free acceleration'. I believe Shawyer also talks about it. It would be the most revolutionary thing to emerge from the EMdrive, doesn't it?
To me it merely sounds like an excuse to explain null-results of experiments. Even gravitation acts as a force. It is very hard to imagine what the nature of such a 'force-free acceleration' would be.
Cheers, Peter
The EmDrive generates 2 forces:
1) Static Thrust force which is generated by the guide wavelength variation with changing cavity diameter. The Thrust force vector follows longer guide wavelength to shorter guide wavelength direction in the resonant cavity. In a non dielectric cavity, the Thrust force vector is small to big end. It has been measured by many experimenters using a scale or a torsion pendulum, which is just a fancy scale. No movement of the cavity is required for the Thrust force to be generated. Well Ok a little movement happens as all scale like devices have a spring constant.
2) Accelerative Reaction force, which is equal in value but opposite in force vector to the Thrust force. It can only be measured via A = F/M on a rotary test rig or linear test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Most EmDrive experimenters measure the static Thrust force.
I know of only 2 EmDrive experiments that have measured the accelerative Reaction force. One being Roger's 2006 Demonstrator testing on a rotary air bearing test rig and another that I can't share but has very high credibility. I'm working to make that 3.
Both of these forces can and have been measured, but not at the same time, including the Thrust force vector change that happens when you add a dielectric to the small end of the cavity.
Now we need a theory that predicts what has been physically measured. So far Roger's is the closest I know of.
Your 2-forces description remains equivalent to saying that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right contradicting F=m*a.
I have asked you many times to answer 2 simple questions about a simple, real system that mimics the forces that the emDrive produces according to Shawyer. Your inability or unwillingness to answer them indicates that you either don't understand simple mechanics, or you are not interested in rational discussion. Either way, this there is no point in me providing further explanations of why your claims don't make sense until you answer the questions.
-
....
But it certainly a good thing that there are 'believers' (excusez le mot) and sceptics on this forum! We should not avoid though discussions. (when I started to set up a replication experiment I was for 99.9% certain it was all due to heat effects and magnetic fields, etc. Now I would set that to 90%. So my believe in the possibility that there really is an anomalous effect already increased 100-fold!). '-)
Keep up the good work.
Peter
Do you have updates of your experiment? For example, photos of the settings. Thanks.
-
Very soon I trust that will be 0% doubt.
As someone who tries to be a Bayesian scientist (now and then), I should never assign either 0 or 100% doubt or certainty.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability]
-
Do you have updates of your experiment? For example, photos of the settings. Thanks.
Soon. Torsion balance nearing completeness, test cavities still need to be soldered, some RF stuff has to be ordered.
Thanks as well, Peter
-
Your 2-forces description remains equivalent to saying that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right contradicting F=m*a.
I have asked you many times to answer 2 simple questions about a simple, real system that mimics the forces that the emDrive produces according to Shawyer. Your inability or unwillingness to answer them indicates that you either don't understand simple mechanics, or you are not interested in rational discussion. Either way, this there is no point in me providing further explanations of why your claims don't make sense until you answer the questions.
Actually there are 3 forces involved but more on that later.
It matters not what we say or wish to believe, the EmDrive generates the 2 forces (well actually 3) that have been measured. What I have described are the physical results of the real world forces that are generated by whatever happens inside the frustum.
And yes the forces generated are not what we have come to expect, but then are we so sure we have experienced all that nature has in store for us?
Ok it is hard to accept the reality of:
1) A Thrust force, with vector small to big, that can generate a static force on a non moving scale, yet not generate a dynamic force that can cause acceleration.
2) A Reaction force, with vector big to small, that can generate an accelerative dynamic force, yet not generate a static force on a non moving scale.
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, we need to try to understand what these 2 very different force characteristics are trying to tell us about what is happening inside the frustum.
There is a difference between a scale based test rig and a rotary test rig.
1) Scale: no movement and no change in the dual travelling EmWave path lengths big to small and small to big.
2) Rotary test rig: movement in big to small direction, with longer dual travelling EmWave path length big to small and shorter dual travelling EmWave path length small to big. Think differential Doppler / phase shift. Think change in CW and CCW path lengths for a rotating Laser Ring Gyro.
-
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, ...
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
-
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
Photos of of the experiment are very helpful for people to identify important issues overlooked by the experimenters.
-
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, ...
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
Yes they do and they include independent review of the report.
In my opinion the Demonstrator test report has more data and explanation than the Experimental test report but both should comply with your requirements.
But then I'm looking from the inside, with a lot of time talking to Roger, building my thruster and engaging with other successful builders. When I read the reports, I fully understand them on a line by line basis and they raise no issues for me.
However I can see how someone without my hands on experience could find the reports daunting as they claim the generation and measurement of forces that are outside normal human experience. That alone would cause many to stop reading and doubt the sanity of the writer.
However Roger is not alone in building EmDrives and measuring these strange forces.
What amazes me it is would seem that for some no amount of experimental data can get them past the point where they accept the existence of forces and their characteristics that are beyond anything they have ever experienced before. It is as if for some, what they have experienced to date is all that there is to know about forces and their characteristics and any data that suggests there may be forces and characteristic unknown to them is not possible and any experimental data that shows they are real can't be valid and MUST be dismissed.
Well I can tell you the forces generated by a EmDrive are very real and yes they have very new, to some, characteristics.
December will be interesting..........
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
-
Most of you are discussing advanced topics, but I am still more or less in the 'plumbing phase'. Fortunately, according to Paul March, I don't have to get skilled in silver soldering but can use ordinary lead/tin solder as well to make a reasonable microwave cavity. That will save some time. :)
Best,
Peter
from thread 5
« on: 10/18/2015 04:45 AM »
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March
-
Photos of of the experiment are very helpful for people to identify important issues overlooked by the experimenters.
Sometimes, I would say. Often a good technical drawing is better. (both of them would be even better, I agree).
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram?
-
The basic point is that you say the EmDrive, if it works at all, will stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. You're claiming you know Shawyer, Fetta and anyone else who shows a fixed thrust for a fixed electrical power doesn't understand how physics works if they claim that acceleration will just continue. Myself and others believe if it works at all, nothing can limit the acceleration since all observer frames are arbitrary. I believe the energy conundrum is only an apparent violation.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force which is the point Woodward made.
What you claim as a basic point from me is a total mistake about what I have repeated, including in preceding answers to you. I am deeply disappointed that it happens after so many exchanges.
I never claimed that the Emdrive would necessary stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. I have claimed that if the Emdrive doesn't steal energy to something else, and still gives constant thrust for constant imput power, it breaks CoE. I also repeated several times the example of Gravity Assist, what is a perfect example of stolen Energy, and had been precedently used by Dr Rodal.
How can you remove this condition ?
Also, even if this condition was no satisfied, I had written that it would break CoE. Not that it was impossible. The only thing that I consider, in the context of these threads to be impossible to break are the maths and the logic.
Also, I do not understand how you can consider than a ship with a small 200kVe generator coming back on the earth after 20 years of space travel, and making an impact and releasing the energy of 5 million Hiroshima bombs without having stolen energy to anything else is only an apparent violation ? What do you need to make a violation not only apparent ? destroying the entire solar system with the energy of a battery AAA ?
You think There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle.
It depends of how it works.
For example, if the Emdrive is a way of pusing against distant masses, with a new interaction, the emdrive could "know" it's Kinetic Energy just like a car knows it's Kinetic energy when pushing against the road, or a maglev train "knows" it's Kinetic energy relatively to the rail.
If the emdrive is a way of pushing against Dark matter, and if the movement applies to dark matter, the Kinetic energy in the referential of the dark matter the Emdrive is pushing against will be relevant.
Etc.
The claim that the emdrive can give thrust superior to P/V in any inertial reference frame closes these possible theories. How do you know that these theories are impossible ?
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
You got a contradiction here... if there is a propellant, there is a reference frame in which it is "at rest", and this frame will play a special role. Just like a car/train uses the Earth as a "propellant", it becomes harder and harder for it to accelerate as the relative velocity increases (relative to the "propellant"). When you're pushing against something that is already moving relative to you, you need to apply more power to get the same velocity change (just look at the kinetic energy formula).
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
You got a contradiction here... if there is a propellant, there is a reference frame in which it is "at rest", and this frame will play a special role. Just like a car/train uses the Earth as a "propellant", it becomes harder and harder for it to accelerate as the relative velocity increases (relative to the "propellant"). When you're pushing against something that is already moving relative to you, you need to apply more power to get the same velocity change (just look at the kinetic energy formula).
Not necessarily. Just as the speed of light is the same to all observers in all frames, perhaps the Center of Momentum frame of the universe is the same for all observers, there is no preferred frame. Then, whatever the "propellant" is, it acts like a real propellant on a real rocket which always acts in the rest frame of the rocket. Thus, to all observers, the"propellant" has the initial kinetic energy of the speed of the EmDrive being observed and it can lend some of that energy to the device. So, whether you observe a device at 1000m/s or at half the speed of light, in each case the "propellant" has the proper energy to give to the device.
-
Not necessarily. Just as the speed of light is the same to all observers in all frames, perhaps the Center of Momentum frame of the universe is the same for all observers, there is no preferred frame. Then, whatever the "propellant" is, it acts like a real propellant on a real rocket which always acts in the rest frame of the rocket. Thus, to all observers, the"propellant" has the initial kinetic energy of the speed of the EmDrive being observed and it can lend some of that energy to the device. So, whether you observe a device at 1000m/s or at half the speed of light, in each case the "propellant" has the proper energy to give to the device.
In which case we got ourselves a free energy device, which is great! But not very realistic, or is it?
-
I agree with Bob012345, there is no preferred frame. Moreover, energy is relative:
-If you take potential energy, it is due to position, which depends on the origin.
-If you take kinetic energy, it is due to velocity, which depends upon the reference frame.
-If you take mass energy, again, mass is relative, depends upon reference frame.
-If you take acceleration, acceleration for one observer is detectable while it occurs, by means of accurate clocks. But the comparison of elapsed time can only be made if the two observers later return to the same event, and can compare their clocks. This will not be the case in a relativistic trip if one day this can be done…
However, feeling acceleration in a frame is another thing. It has to do with some local experiment made in this frame. If I am in an inertial frame, yes you can say acceleration is absolute. This is not the case in non-inertial frames (for instance, at the surface of the Earth, our frame is a non-inertial). Each observer or frame has in fact a local feeling of the word, which is dictated by the metrics "felt" locally by this observer.
The concept of "relative acceleration” could make sense, for instance, if we consider another accelerating observer looking at us. We could choose, at any instant t, an inertial comoving-frame (different for each t) which has, at any time, the same speed that we have (and with same origin). So in this frame acceleration disappears and in this sense, acceleration (remember, defined as the derivative of the velocity that is also a relative concept) is clearly a relative magnitude.
Going back to EmDrive, imagine we are a zero rest mass observer (a bunch of photons trapped inside a Shawyer cavity or some grams of photons inside the holraum of a just imploded nuclear weapon warhead http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-4.html#Nfaq4.4.3.1 ) and we are isolated in the middle of a huge empty space and there is no one single point to define a reference frame, an origin or a comoving-frame. There will be no possibility to define neither velocity, nor acceleration or moreover energy!!!
We need clearly some reference object (and inertial frame) to say we are accelerating, and probably the only we can define are the distant galaxies, or let’s say worse, the microwave cosmic background, that is escaping from us also at the speed of light. Up to this, all is traditional relativity physics.
From here is where new physics start and this forum is for its discussion: please, let’s suppose that our most essential and basic comoving- frame is accelerating at a minimum rate, just the cosmological acceleration a0 = 2c2/H0, the rate at which the universe expands and precisely a rate of acceleration so low, but just enough, to reach exactly the speed of light in the entire life of universe. Let’s say:There are no pure inertial frames, this is impossible, because any frame is accelerating at a minimum rate, and this is the rate of cosmological acceleration.
Moreover, if we accelerate at this very low rate, our (relative) acceleration disappears and so there is no necessity of energy to move. In other words, we need zero force to reach the speed of light in the entire life of universe of course at a very low acceleration, because the cosmological acceleration (or simply the rate of expansion of the universe) will make us to do so for free. Is this correct?
Let’s suppose this is true. In fact cosmological constant or dark energy is just another way to explain this idea in traditional physics. How can we design some experiment to check that?
This is where EmDrive comes, maybe based in the effect that the minimum acceleration needs no force at all...
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1385495;image)
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from, especially in the context of general relativity.
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram?
I hate replying to myself, but I thought about a simple way to explain the intricacies of working in two+ dimensions on complicated shapes.
Imagine I have a circle with balls (or photons) bouncing around inside it. Eventually, no matter the initial direction and location of the ball, the ball bounces around a full circle, canceling out any momentum imparted on the circle. If I were to analyze only one bounce however (as in your diagram), I would come to the conclusion that there was a net momentum imparted on the circle, but I would be incorrect. The analysis of any two+ dimensional bouncing ball system is not complete until you integrate the momentum changes over all the bounces of the ball, taking into account the x and y components of momentum transfer with each bounce.
A frustum, triangle, square, etc. is no different. The internal angles add up to 360 degrees, just like a circle. Eventually the ball (or small photon, or ...) bounces in all directions equally, imparting no net momentum on the frustum. The more complex the shape, the harder this is to prove analytically of course, but that just gives people the incentive to make as complicated shape as possible in order to make it impossible to prove analytically... if you attempt to model the complex shape numerically you have to be extremely careful about rounding errors, as the Paul Kocyla is likely to discover.
I believe I can also model the idea that there's a preference side for the ball being absorbed using the same circular model. In this model the hypothesis is that the absorption side causes a momentum transfer. For example if I put an absorbing substance on one side of the circle (or a small patch) and the instantaneous input energy = instantaneous absorbed energy, then it's no different than if I had a photon (or a tennis ball) rocket. If instantaneous input energy != instantaneous absorbed energy, then internal energy would continue to increase to infinity, which is clearly not happening by anyone's measurements. The systems clearly reach an equilibrium of input energy and absorption. (by absorption, I really mean, turn photons into heat)
I don't think you can describe the behavior of the frustum with a simple mechanical model. A suitable model needs to likely include the idea that the photons are about the size of the frustum (i.e. standing waves), that (likely) standing acoustic waves won't reproduce the same phenomena because of something different about photons. There might be more than these minimum requirements. More importantly than this thought experiment, the current physical evidence supports these minimum requirements of a model.
-
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure...
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
I know the question is for Meberbs, and I am not Meberbs, but I shall give my own answer for this interesting question.
My answer is that we don't know. There are several possible evolutions for the motion over time, following different theories. Without being exhaustive, here are a few of the possible solutions. I start the most pessimist, and go to the most exotic solution.
1 : Emdrive works only by thermals, or by any terrestrial artifact. The probe shall give no thrust as soon as it is in space, and the thrust shall stay to zero all the time. CoE satisfied.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
In fact, it would work like a man on a skateboard with a winch and a harpoon navigating on the roads. When he want to accelerate in a direction, he harpoon a car, than he can use his winch to go closer to the car.
If the car is not moving relatively to the road, he moves only by using the winch, and in that case the Kinetic energy gained is limited to P/V in the road reference frame. At the opposite, if the car is going in the right direction, the man on the skateboard can get speed (and Kinetic energy in the road reference frame for free)
If the drive works like that, the possibilities depends on the distance of the corpses that can be used, and their effectives positions. It would be like navigating on the sea with a sail boat. The speed depends on the winds. Their forces, and their directions. A sail boat can't just go in straight line at constant speed from it's departure to it's destination. CoE satisfied
3 : Emdrive works because it is pushing against an uknown type of aether. The space being like a road, with a local prefered reference frame. It does not means that it is absolute. For example, it may be the Quasilocal Center-of-Mass for Teleparallel Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403101
If this quasilocal center of mass could be used like a reference frame for this new kind of aether, globally, it would not moves much compared with the near masses. Probably Only a few hundreds of kilometers per second for our earth.
In fact, space would be like the water of a river. It is easier to go in the direction of the current.
In that case, the Emship performance should depends it's direction, and the thrust should be limited to P/V in the local space referential. But the thrust can be superior to P/V in the right direction, in an earth referential, as the energy is stolen to the current.. CoE satisfied.
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
6 : The emdrive works because it harvest energy from a degradable Quantum Vacuum. It steals energy to the Quantuum Vacuum.
6a) It can also give constant thrust for constant imput power, but degrade for long term the Quantum vacuum, as we do with the Oil under the ground. CoE satisfied.
6b) The Quantum Vacuum regenerates quickly without stealing energy to something else. So, the Quantum Vacuum can give energy from nowhere, or from outside of our 3D+time universe. In that case CoE is broken from the viewpoint of our universe. But if our 3D+time universe is a part of a 4D+time universe, CoE may still apply in this bigger universe.
7)We live in a simulated universe (the creators of the simulation merit the name of gods) and the calculus are made with a limited precision. The emdrive is a way of using the approximations in a way that violates the general laws.
I need to give an example to make it more concrete. Imagine a game with your child. If he gives you the 3 leaves of a Clover, you give him one dollar. But he can give you only one leaf, you give him the third of one dollar. When your child give you money, you give back to him flowers with the same ratio. But your are limited to cents.
If your child want to scam you, he will bring you the 2 leaves of a Clover. You will have to give him 0,666666666666… dollars. But your are limited to cents. So you have to make an approximation. If you approximate to the closer, you will give him 0,67 dollars.
Than, he ask you to by again a leaf. One leaf would be 0,33333333333… dollars. But the approximation gives only 0,33 dollars. So you ask to your child 0,33 dollars, and gives him a leaf.
Than, he buy again the second leaf for anonther 0,33 dollars.
He has recovered his two leaves, and has gained 0,01 dollars. And he can do the same again, and again.
Maybe it is the same with the emdrive. Cheating with the approximations of the universe would be a form of a soft bug exploit. It probably breaks CoE and CoM, but, as in all the theories that I mentioned, maths and logic are still intact.
As you can see, the Emdrive should comport differently in deep space for different theories. And I just mentioned a few of them.
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
I have resumed 7 possible theories, with 6 where the emdrive is working. In these theories, several have a prefered reference frame, in which the acceleration has to decrease with the speed for constant power and constant efficiency, as it is for the small propeller airplane.
It is not necessary the frame where it starts from. It is the relevant frame. For example, if I walk in a train, and if an observer outside the train want to make my balance sheet about CoE, he has to take the train into account, and consider that me feets are pushing against the train. He will not take into account the place I am born.
-
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure...
Mode is TE013 (instead of TE012) . The rest of your conclusion is excellent. :)
-
8
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure...
Mode is TE013 (instead of TE012) . The rest of your conclusion is excellent. :)
Ugh, my old eyeballs. You could guess my age by my refusal to wear reading glasses. Please don't. 8)
I do notice that there is some slight bending of the Poynting vectors where they are close to the frustum. So my visualization involves a lot of rounding and I may be missing a small difference. Have you numerically integrated the Poynting vectors to see what happens?
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place. My comments:
1 : Emdrive works only by thermals, or by any terrestrial artifact. The probe shall give no thrust as soon as it is in space, and the thrust shall stay to zero all the time. CoE satisfied.
I think a big item here is some sort of force pushing on connecting cables. I recall in high current devices in my past that you can bend hunks of metal with sufficient current passing. We're talking 100s of newtons level of forces for a pulse of 150 Joules over about 10mS. It wouldn't take much current to get 10mN. Until we get more unattached experimental results this needs to be seriously considered as a possible hypothesis.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
3 : Emdrive works because it is pushing against an uknown type of aether. The space being like a road, with a local prefered reference frame. It does not means that it is absolute. For example, it may be the Quasilocal Center-of-Mass for Teleparallel Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403101
I will have to absorb the article to understand this, but again I trot out the isotropic gravity argument.
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
Those two seem like a single item. It remains to add to these theories the essential property of all currently positive experiments: A resonant frequency where the photons are near the size of the frustum.
6 : The emdrive works because it harvest energy from a degradable Quantum Vacuum. It steals energy to the Quantuum Vacuum.
6a) It can also give constant thrust for constant imput power, but degrade for long term the Quantum vacuum, as we do with the Oil under the ground. CoE satisfied.
6b) The Quantum Vacuum regenerates quickly without stealing energy to something else. So, the Quantum Vacuum can give energy from nowhere, or from outside of our 3D+time universe. In that case CoE is broken from the viewpoint of our universe. But if our 3D+time universe is a part of a 4D+time universe, CoE may still apply in this bigger universe.
Same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
7)We live in a simulated universe (the creators of the simulation merit the name of gods) and the calculus are made with a limited precision. The emdrive is a way of using the approximations in a way that violates the general laws.
Again same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
For all the above: What are OTHER implications of the theory that we could measure more simply/cheaply?
What measurements should the experimenters be making to attempt to falsify these hypothesis?
Say what you want about MiHsC, at least the creator has outlined a number of predictions and proposed experiments to falsify MiHsC.
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram?
I hate replying to myself, but I thought about a simple way to explain the intricacies of working in two+ dimensions on complicated shapes.
Imagine I have a circle with balls (or photons) bouncing around inside it. Eventually, no matter the initial direction and location of the ball, the ball bounces around a full circle, canceling out any momentum imparted on the circle. If I were to analyze only one bounce however (as in your diagram), I would come to the conclusion that there was a net momentum imparted on the circle, but I would be incorrect. The analysis of any two+ dimensional bouncing ball system is not complete until you integrate the momentum changes over all the bounces of the ball, taking into account the x and y components of momentum transfer with each bounce.
A frustum, triangle, square, etc. is no different. The internal angles add up to 360 degrees, just like a circle. Eventually the ball (or small photon, or ...) bounces in all directions equally, imparting no net momentum on the frustum. The more complex the shape, the harder this is to prove analytically of course, but that just gives people the incentive to make as complicated shape as possible in order to make it impossible to prove analytically... if you attempt to model the complex shape numerically you have to be extremely careful about rounding errors, as the Paul Kocyla is likely to discover.
I believe I can also model the idea that there's a preference side for the ball being absorbed using the same circular model. In this model the hypothesis is that the absorption side causes a momentum transfer. For example if I put an absorbing substance on one side of the circle (or a small patch) and the instantaneous input energy = instantaneous absorbed energy, then it's no different than if I had a photon (or a tennis ball) rocket. If instantaneous input energy != instantaneous absorbed energy, then internal energy would continue to increase to infinity, which is clearly not happening by anyone's measurements. The systems clearly reach an equilibrium of input energy and absorption. (by absorption, I really mean, turn photons into heat)
I don't think you can describe the behavior of the frustum with a simple mechanical model. A suitable model needs to likely include the idea that the photons are about the size of the frustum (i.e. standing waves), that (likely) standing acoustic waves won't reproduce the same phenomena because of something different about photons. There might be more than these minimum requirements. More importantly than this thought experiment, the current physical evidence supports these minimum requirements of a model.
Hi InterestedEngineer. I saw you mentioned the bouncing ball analogy and I couldn't resist. I have done some work using the concept of bouncing balls in a cavity to convince myself no acceleration can happen. Part of the reason is if a ball hits one wall and the cavity has a mass and the ball has a mass then a certain % of the balls energy is transferred to the cavity. The equation for energy transfer is entirely based off an equation of their respective masses so velocity is not a factor. Upon the slowed ball hitting the now accelerated cavity wall on the other side the ball picks back up its original speed. The whole system preserves momentum and energy. Everything here is pretty standard.
There have however been experiments where a change in the energy exchanged upon the collision of a photon have been detected which equates to an apparent change in mass of the photon. Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by M Partanen, T Häyrynen, J Oksanen… (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12263767291116468273&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14) We know in dielectrics the wavelength of light shortens. This shortening of the wavelength of light may be an apparent change in mass which may be of the form in this document here: page 21 Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity by H. E. Puthoff (https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf) . They don't show the wavelength but I pull it out of the equations here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604399#msg1604399 . If the photon "effective" mass changes, the percentage of energy exchanged upon collision with a wall and photon changes by a method similar the equation I have in the image posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1494279#msg1494279 . From this I can derive a change in wavelength of light which I have done here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1497641#msg1497641. This change in wavelength represents an energy loss of the photon from the percentage of energy lost during the collision. Photons naturally exchange very little energy but it is known that they do (solar sails for example).
We have been observing a change in wavelength in the cavity as you can see from TheTravelers post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604741#msg1604741 and other posts or this well made web page by Greg Egan here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html Search his page for "Energy, pressure and forces" and look at the cavities just above. The polarizable vacuum method (PV ) of predicting the photons as increasing in mass at the shorter wavelengths seems to correctly predict the direction of force for TheTravelers recent post above though I remain uncertain this is the case for everyone.
It is a fascinating concept that the light inside can change in wavelength. I have recently come to terms that the gradient in energy density stored in the cavity (you can look up the energy density at Greg Egan's Website) gives a spring constant to the magnetic field inside the cavity. The weaker in energy magnetic fields inside the cavity appear compressed because of their weaker spring constant, while the energy rich magnetic field appears to have its wavelength expanded because of its increased spring constant. Now parallel this to that standing waves that are counter-propagating photons (sine waves) so these photons going back and forth have their wavelengths constantly changing.
Normally the photons wouldn't lose energy but the change in mass causes them to lose more energy to one side of the cavity. This may cause an overall red-shift in the light, in the cavity, over time. This is representative of an effective transfer of energy after many reflections, which may be more effective than a laser or a solar sail at harnessing energy from photons. This may be why the Q of the cavity is so important. This red shifting of the light may not show up until the cavity accelerates if the light is not interacting with the Quantum Vacuum (similar to an accelerating photon recycling dual mirror). The red-shifting may possibly show up even if the cavity is not accelerating if the cavity is some how accelerating the QV but I am not certain.
I suspect the reason for the change in mass may be directly related to the quantum vacuum which from reading about Dr. White recently appears to parallel with his hypothesis about the Quantum Vacuum being non-degenerative or non-degradable, I think is how it was put.
With no heat loss and perfect transfer of energy, the energy lost to a photon over time should either be directly transferred to the kinetic energy of the cavity, unlike a solar sail but similar to photon recycling mirrors (yet different in that both mirrors move together) or I may be wrong on this and a percentage of energy may be lost to changing the relative velocity of the quantum vacuum.
This is my guess on the matter if it works, but I hope to see more conclusive experimental evidence before I conclude anything. I should attempt to make a prediction based on the hypothesis of the magnitude of thrust possible.
Pardon my horribly long post. Hopefully it is not confusing and clarifies what I think may be going on.
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
I know the question is for Meberbs, and I am not Meberbs, but I shall give my own answer for this interesting question.
...
I can't provide a better answer than that one. The answer depends on how the emDrive works, and I currently have no theory as to how it does. (given the available evidence, I still find "it doesn't" to be the most likely)
If it is shown to work, I would first look for a local medium that it pushes against, quantum vacuum, dark matter, or similar, which would cause performance to be relative to the local velocity of the medium. There are other possibilities with general relativity and such, but this is what seems like it would raise the fewest other issues.
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right.
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place.
My post is not representative of the theories being developped here. I think that all these I mentionned were already taken into account here, but some that were more developped here are not mentionned in my post. It should not be taken like a summary, but only a small sample.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
Of course, the cases 2 to 7 involves new physics. The Emdrive doesn't work in standard physics.
Also, can you be more precise when you mean that Gravity is isotropic ?
Do you means that the matter repartition in the universe is supposed to be isotropic at large scales, or do you means a property of gravity itself ?
-
Again same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
A resonant cavities stored energy = input power * Q. Without resonance the cavity can't receive Rf energy. Resonance enables both Rf energy to enter the cavity and high Q allows the stored energy to be much greater than the input power.
Think of a cavity as a funny kind of capacitor that can only store energy at the resonant freq of the capacitor. Q is then like Farad and then the higher the Q, like the higher the Farad, the higher the stored energy inside.
It should be noted that resonance for a cavity needs some number of 1/2 guide waves to fit, end to end, inside the cavity between the physical end plates. If you measure the length of the cavity and calculate the length of a 1/2 wave external to the cavity, the 1/2 waves would not fit between the end plates. This is because inside the cavity the wavelength is longer than outside. These internal waves are called guide wave and their length varies as to the excited mode and cavity diameter. These images show the effect, where you can easily see that the guide wavelength is longer at the small end than at the large end. This altering guide wavelength vs diameter is the key to the EmDrive.
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right.
1) The EmDrive works.
2) It generates 2 very different force characteristics that can and have been measured.
If you can't accept that reality, there is not a lot of common ground for discussion.
Here maybe you need to start and accept the guide waves are formed inside the frustum, with a shorter wavelength than external and the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. If you can't even accept the microwave engineering reality, you claimed there is not phase not guide wavelength inside a frustum, then we can't even get to the 1st step in understanding the operational characteristics of a EmDrive and how those characteristics must guide us to a theory that can explain their existence.
So the 1st step in understand EmDrive engineering is understand how the guide wavelength is altered by diameter and how that diameter enforced change allows some integer number of 1/2 waves to fit, end to end, between the physical distance between the end plates.
Do you agree this is what happens? I mean it is shown on all the simulation modeling by COMSOL, FEKO and Meeps. It is where we need to start to find agreement.
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation.
-
RE: Isotropic Gravity
1. I would dispute this. A textbook gravitational wave polarised in the x-y plane produces motion in that plane as it passes in the z direction, but no motion in the z direction. That can't reasonably be described as isotropic.
2. I'm not aware of anyone testing for anomalous gravitational effects outside the frustrum. There could well be isotropic gravitational fields pushing on the frustrum and 'pushing' the other way outside. For example, if the EMDrive creates a 'virtual mass' just outside the big end, which pulls the drive towards it, but also pulls in the opposite direction some way off. That could be an isotropic force which no-one would so far have seen.
Similarly, no-one has yet reported (or tested for?) any mass-dependence on EMdrive forces, which one might expect if some kind of gravitational force was involved (a more massive test rig would appear to see more Force if it experienced the same gravitational acceleration as a lighter rig).
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation.
You are right. I have chosen to mention many theories but not the one of Shawyer, because, as it is formulated by Shawyer, it is math inconsistent. Anyway, that don't means that it's prediction are false.
I had thought to add a 8 Shawyer theory is correct because maths are inconsistent, and the deceptive god prevents us from realizing it.
Anyway, the fact that Shawyer is inconsistent does not means that all it's results are false.
I also note that, with Shawyer actual theory, the maximum thrust can go as high as Q multiplied by the thrust of a photon drive. With a Q of one billion, it can give the thrust of around one billion photon rockets for the same energy.
So, it is like if the photons gave momentum by bouncing at one side, and no momentum at bouncing at the other side. Maybe it is true for a physical reason belonging to new physics, but it is not true with classical equations that he is using.
MiHsC also give numerical predictions for the thrust of the Emdrive. Shawyer's theory is not alone...
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation.
You are right. I have chosen to mention many theories but not the one of Shawyer, because, as it is formulated by Shawyer, it is math inconsistent. Anyway, that don't means that it's prediction are false.
I had thought to add a 8 Shawyer theory is correct because maths are inconsistent, and the deceptive god prevents us from realizing it.
Anyway, the fact that Shawyer is inconsistent does not means that all it's results are false.
I also note that, with Shawyer actual theory, the maximum thrust can go as high as Q multiplied by the thrust of a photon drive. With a Q of one billion, it can give the thrust of around one billion photon rockets for the same energy.
So, it is like if the photons gave momentum by bouncing at one side, and no momentum at bouncing at the other side. Maybe it is true for a physical reason belonging to new physics, but it is not true with classical equations that he is using.
MiHsC also give numerical predictions for the thrust of the Emdrive. Shawyer's theory is not alone...
Cavity stored energy = Q * power. Accelerator guys knows it works like that. Not much different to capacitor stored energy increasing as Farad increases. So you need to work from the stored energy value and not the Rf power input.
What Roger says is the Thrust force, vector small to big, = Big end axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy - (side wall axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy + small end axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy) with radiation pressure adjusted for increasing guide wavelength as the cavity diameter reduces.
Basically Thrust force = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c.
.... Df adjusts for the ratio of the big end to small end radiation pressure difference. The Df equation effect is not linear and is attached.
.... 2 is for absorption and reradiation momentum xfer.
.... Qu adjusts the input Pwr to be the value of the stored energy in the cavity after a 5X TC energy charge. TC increases as Q increases.
You need to understand the effect is driven by the increasing guide wavelength, which reduces EmWave momentum and radiation pressure, as the cavity diameter reduces.
The attached plots the guide wavelength change vs diameter change vs EmWave momentum/radiation pressure in my new spherical end plate cavity. Clearly the change in the guide wavelength and the momentum/radiation pressure is not a linear function with diameter change.
The plots are based on existing microwave engineering equations that have existed for 65 years.
Bottom line is the EmDrive does generate those 2 seemingly crazy forces, forces that have been measured and their characteristics are as described.
So any theory put forward has to describe the generation of BOTH forces and why they have the seemingly crazy characteristics they have.
-
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
Those two seem like a single item. It remains to add to these theories the essential property of all currently positive experiments: A resonant frequency where the photons are near the size of the frustum.
If I have correctly understood MiHsc, what is still one of my favorite theories, there is a big difference between 4 and 5. With MiHsc, the closed frustrum is working like a rindler horizon for the photons inside. So everything outside the frustrum is already beyond the event horizon.
With my 4 it was about our usual Rindler horizon. It makes a huge difference between using an event horizon of a few centimeters, and a few billion light years. :P So, the energy stolen in MiHsc could be situated in our visible universe, what is already beyond the frustrum horizon. If I misunderstood MiHSC any explanation is welcome.
And as it was very well written by The Traveller, the resonnance it important because of the multiplying Q factor. If there is a resonnance with a Q of 1 billion instead of 1, in most of the theories that I mentionned, the effect is multiplied by one billion.
For example, for my theory number 7. If the 2 leaves of a clover are used for one complete exchange : 2 sold-1bought-1bought) it can give a benefit of 1 cent to the child.
If the leaves are destroyed just after, it is not much.
But, if the same leaves can be used 1 billion times, the child can get 10 million dollars.
That would be the same with photons. If for each round trip a photon steal a small momentum or/and energy to anything[aether, dark matter, distant masses] the more times you can use the same photon, the more thrust you got. That is why the resonnance is usefull. Without resonnance you have nothing mesurable.
In some theories of pushing against something that would means photon redshifting. As for photon recycling. This doesn't help to keep resonnance...
-
That would be the same with photons. If for each round trip a photon steal a small momentum or/and energy to anything[aether, dark matter, distant masses] the more times you can use the same photon, the more thrust you got. That is why the resonnance is usefull. Without resonnance you have nothing mesurable.
In some theories of pushing against something that would means photon redshifting. As for photon recycling. This doesn't help to keep resonnance...
At each end plate reflection, some small part of the total momentum of the EmWave / photon is transferred to the end plate. Upon re radiation, the emitted photon again transfers momentum to the end plate, has less momentum and thus the reradiated photon is red shifted to that which was absorbed to reflect the lower momentum. Thus over time, the cavity stored energy is both continually red shifted to reflect lost momentum and the total value is reduced from wall eddy current heating.
In very high Q cavities, Roger actually excites with a freq slightly above resonance so the averaged guide wavelength is as close to resonance as possible as the guide wavelength drops, due to momentum loss, during the lifetime of the resonant cavity energy.
Trick little beasts, these cavities and their characteristics.
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
-
Put me in the category of skeptic because that's my nature. :o But I'm also desperately wanting EmDrive to be what Shawyer claims it is...because of course think of the fantastic ramifications! Although, I find it hard to believe that I can walk under a hovering space plane with a second generation emdrive producing tons of thrust and not feel any force pushing down on me.
It seems like most everybody agrees that Shawyer's explanation of why EmDrive works is wrong. Here is a link to his paper http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf. I've read it, and at first glance it appears logical and consistent. I cannot find any mathematical mistakes or contractions. (I have an EE degree, but it's been years since I've practiced.)
Has anybody written a paper that very simply explains where in Shawyer's theory paper he makes a mistake? Where is he wrong in his math. Or where is he wrong in his assumptions on what his equations represent in reality?
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right.
1) The EmDrive works.
2) It generates 2 very different force characteristics that can and have been measured.
If you can't accept that reality, there is not a lot of common ground for discussion.
Here maybe you need to start and accept the guide waves are formed inside the frustum, with a shorter wavelength than external and the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. If you can't even accept the microwave engineering reality, you claimed there is not phase not guide wavelength inside a frustum, then we can't even get to the 1st step in understanding the operational characteristics of a EmDrive and how those characteristics must guide us to a theory that can explain their existence.
So the 1st step in understand EmDrive engineering is understand how the guide wavelength is altered by diameter and how that diameter enforced change allows some integer number of 1/2 waves to fit, end to end, between the physical distance between the end plates.
Do you agree this is what happens? I mean it is shown on all the simulation modeling by COMSOL, FEKO and Meeps. It is where we need to start to find agreement.
A problem here is that you are not being specific about the 2nd observation. I don't believe any of us have observed, what ever this is. How are you measuring it? What are you observing? I am sure we would like to observe what ever it is that is being observed ourselves.
1) A force is on the frustum. - OK, we understand the concept to observe this.
2) Some other force is acting on something else... -> what is that something else? The light? Some thing other than light is carrying momentum away what drags on other near by objects? How is it being observed? When the frustum accelerates is the light depleting in energy at a larger rate?
From your last post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605596#msg1605596 I would speculate you are transmitting at a shorter wavelength than is needed for resonance and while freely accelerating it hits better resonance this way than while standing still. This suggests you may be observing a bandwidth of frequencies upon acceleration. But how would this be the equal and opposite force? Is it because the light appears in a sense to be, being slowed down (well, losing energy may be the better choice of words) and losing energy or red-shifted but only when the cavity is freely accelerating?
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
How can we know it ?
If we are in simulated world, it may have approximations. it was the principle of the theory number 7. If the universe has an infinite precision, and no approximation at all, of course the theory 7 doesn't work.
I should have mentionned in my post that the theories 2 to 7 all needed new physics. It was so evident in my mind that I did no mention it. None of them could work with standard physics.
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
How can we know it ?
If we are in simulated world, it may have approximations. it was the principle of the theory number 7. If the universe has an infinite precision, and no approximation at all, of course the theory 7 doesn't work.
I should have mentioned in my post that the theories 2 to 7 all needed new physics. It was so evident in my mind that I did no mention it. None of them could work with standard physics.
Simulated world?
Unfortunately, now you are moving the goalposts, by saying "How can we know it?"
If EM drive should work, it will be because of the rules of this universe, regardless of the metaphysical question of how we can know something in general.
Even if this universe should turn out to be a simulated one, the simulation includes those rules which govern EM drive. Those rules do not include "rounding off".
-
Put me in the category of skeptic because that's my nature. :o But I'm also desperately wanting EmDrive to be what Shawyer claims it is...because of course think of the fantastic ramifications! Although, I find it hard to believe that I can walk under a hovering space plane with a second generation emdrive producing tons of thrust and not feel any force pushing down on me.
It seems like most everybody agrees that Shawyer's explanation of why EmDrive works is wrong. Here is a link to his paper http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf. I've read it, and at first glance it appears logical and consistent. I cannot find any mathematical mistakes or contractions. (I have an EE degree, but it's been years since I've practiced.)
Has anybody written a paper that very simply explains where in Shawyer's theory paper he makes a mistake? Where is he wrong in his math. Or where is he wrong in his assumptions on what his equations represent in reality?
There is a whole list of issues, I am not sure how you could have missed them, unless you just skimmed through. (Some of the mistakes are so basic, that it took me a while to first notice them, because I never thought to check if he got the direction of the force consistent)
First, he takes an equation derived for a constant area cylindrical waveguide and applies it to a closed resonator with tapered sides. This is at best approximately correct.
Second, he ignores the force on the side walls, which balances whatever the difference is between the force on the end plates.
Third, at equation 8, he incorrectly applies the frame transformation equation for velocity to a random difference of velocities when he is not transforming reference frames.
Fourth, he states (correctly) that the force on the large end is larger than the force on the small end (forces directed outwards from the center of the drive. While he does not make it clear in that paper, the claim (and results of most experiments) is acceleration small end first, contrary to the direction his theory predicts if you ignore all of the other mistakes he made.
These are some of the basic issues, there are also statements in the paper where the words sound good, until you try to parse meaning from them. For example:
Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.
This statement has about as much meaning as "colorless green dreams sleep furiously."
I'd appreciate if you could confirm if you understand these issues, since recent conversations on this thread have made me doubt my ability to explain simple physics concepts.
-
I'd be thrilled it if the thread would take a break from debating Shawyer for a while. It's rarely been productive when its come up; it takes a lot of time to discuss and many a post is spent going back and forth in repetitive exchange, which distracts from the goal of figuring out if EM drives do anything, and how much of anything they might do.
-
This EM Drive topic has been incredibly well behaved (from what I can tell, lack of mod reports, etc.) over recent months, but I'll just remind members that there's clearly opposing camps on this subject. So remember, keep it civil (which I believe you all are) and avoid the trap of having to repeat yourself too many times, especially with the attachments *cough* TheTraveller, ;)
Make your case and follow up questions, but understand some people are convinced this works and some people are convinced it doesn't...but as with all threads on here, 99.9 percent of the "views" are from people not actually posting (guests, people reading, etc.) So you're mainly aiming to convince them, not people posting the opposing view.
As you were ;)
-
Put me in the category of skeptic because that's my nature. :o But I'm also desperately wanting EmDrive to be what Shawyer claims it is...because of course think of the fantastic ramifications! Although, I find it hard to believe that I can walk under a hovering space plane with a second generation emdrive producing tons of thrust and not feel any force pushing down on me.
It seems like most everybody agrees that Shawyer's explanation of why EmDrive works is wrong. Here is a link to his paper http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf. I've read it, and at first glance it appears logical and consistent. I cannot find any mathematical mistakes or contractions. (I have an EE degree, but it's been years since I've practiced.)
Has anybody written a paper that very simply explains where in Shawyer's theory paper he makes a mistake? Where is he wrong in his math. Or where is he wrong in his assumptions on what his equations represent in reality?
There is a whole list of issues, I am not sure how you could have missed them, unless you just skimmed through. (Some of the mistakes are so basic, that it took me a while to first notice them, because I never thought to check if he got the direction of the force consistent)
First, he takes an equation derived for a constant area cylindrical waveguide and applies it to a closed resonator with tapered sides. This is at best approximately correct.
Second, he ignores the force on the side walls, which balances whatever the difference is between the force on the end plates.
If the effective mass of the light doesn't change then I would agree it should all balance out (no net force). However, if there is some "effective" change in mass of the light inside at one end of the cavity as opposed to the other then I suspect there may not be a balance.
Third, at equation 8, he incorrectly applies the frame transformation equation for velocity to a random difference of velocities when he is not transforming reference frames.
Fourth, he states (correctly) that the force on the large end is larger than the force on the small end (forces directed outwards from the center of the drive. While he does not make it clear in that paper, the claim (and results of most experiments) is acceleration small end first, contrary to the direction his theory predicts if you ignore all of the other mistakes he made.
These are some of the basic issues, there are also statements in the paper where the words sound good, until you try to parse meaning from them. For example:
Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.
This statement has about as much meaning as "colorless green dreams sleep furiously."
I think what he may be trying to say here is that there is a force on the frustum, and an apparent force on the light. As the light loses momentum/energy the cavity appears to be gaining momentum. If I am correct in my speculation, he may be observing that while exciting the cavity at a shorter wavelength than needed for resonance, when freely accelerating, that there is an effect of attenuation on the light and a bandwidth of photons appears inside such that the light is rapidly losing energy by a change in wavelength.
I'd appreciate if you could confirm if you understand these issues, since recent conversations on this thread have made me doubt my ability to explain simple physics concepts.
I understand what bothers you. I am trying to approach it from what I feel I may understand. Hopefully I can help clarify a mutual understanding of what is being observed (supposed experimental observations), so we can all better tackle what might be going on by asking this question here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605614#msg1605614
-
1) The EmDrive works.
2) It generates 2 very different force characteristics that can and have been measured.
If you can't accept that reality, there is not a lot of common ground for discussion.
Here maybe you need to start and accept the guide waves are formed inside the frustum, with a shorter wavelength than external and the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. If you can't even accept the microwave engineering reality, you claimed there is not phase not guide wavelength inside a frustum, then we can't even get to the 1st step in understanding the operational characteristics of a EmDrive and how those characteristics must guide us to a theory that can explain their existence.
So the 1st step in understand EmDrive engineering is understand how the guide wavelength is altered by diameter and how that diameter enforced change allows some integer number of 1/2 waves to fit, end to end, between the physical distance between the end plates.
Do you agree this is what happens? I mean it is shown on all the simulation modeling by COMSOL, FEKO and Meeps. It is where we need to start to find agreement.
1. You state this as absolute fact. You are the only one here who does not accept the possibility that emDrive is an experimental error.
2. Your description of these forces has been lacking in clarity, (see dustinthewind's post above)
I have already posted before that according to classical theories (which is what Shawyer claims to use) The force on the large end is larger than that on the small end, though this is exactly balanced by the force on the sidewalls.
I have asked you many times for a physcial definition of guide wavelength, and at best you just repost an equation, without defining the meaning of the variables. The standard definition (distance between surface of constant phase), as you have agreed before, does not apply to a resonator. The pictures in your post imply "distance between nodes in the standing wave," but this doesn't makes sense for all mode shapes, and gives a couple discrete values, rather than a continuously varying value as your equation gives. The only way I can think of to define this would be to somehow break the standing wave into travelling wave components that would each then allow the phrase "surface of constant phase" to have meaning. This is hard to do though.
To answer your question at the end, it depends on what you mean by "this." If you mean that a standing wave pattern is setup that generates different forces on each end, then yes, as this was also shown by Egan.
Rather than the complicated RF stuff, I think the first thing we need to agree on is the definition of force. You still haven't answered my 2 questions about a simple system that mimics the forces on the small and large end of the emDrive (ignoring as Shawyer does the sidewalls).
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
-
Second, he ignores the force on the side walls, which balances whatever the difference is between the force on the end plates.
If the forces balanced there would not be any Thrust force to measure, yet the Thrust force is there and measurable by using nothing more than a scale or torsion pendulum.
Repeatedly saying all the forces balance out is just ignoring all the experimental evidence that they do not balance out.
-
Second, he ignores the force on the side walls, which balances whatever the difference is between the force on the end plates.
If the forces balanced there would not be any Thrust force to measure, yet the Thrust force is there and measurable by using nothing more than a scale or torsion pendulum.
Repeatedly saying all the forces balance out is just ignoring all the experimental evidence that they do not balance out.
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
Now, I would appreciate it if you responded to the questions I asked.
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
-
I'd be thrilled it if the thread would take a break from debating Shawyer for a while. It's rarely been productive when its come up; it takes a lot of time to discuss and many a post is spent going back and forth in repetitive exchange, which distracts from the goal of figuring out if EM drives do anything, and how much of anything they might do.
Sorry for beating a dead horse with my questions. I am new to this thread. You guys have given me enough to chew on. Carry on.
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Yes this above #2. Please be specific about #2. This force can't be #1 so it can't be the frustum accelerating in the same direction as the force from #1. It should be in the opposite direction. Why do you think this force is in the opposite direction as #1 and what is the force acting on. Please clarify this by describing what your are observing that makes you come to this conclusion. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605614#msg1605614
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
Ok thank you for clarifying. It appears he is saying is that there is a Force on the cavity in one direction and a force on the light in the cavity in the other direction such that the light appears to be losing energy and that energy is being transferred to the cavity.
There appears to be a loss of wavelength of the photons in the cavity as they recycle back and forth that they are losing wavelength.
Let me ask you Traveler, have you directly observed such a change in the wavelength of the light in the cavity (a broadening of the bandwidth) during free acceleration with something like a spectrum analyzer or a similar instrument?
There appears to be another issue with Travelers description of the behavior of the cavity producing a force toward the big end plate but accelerating from Big to small end plate. I can't yet understand this issue.
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Yes this above #2. Please be specific about #2. This force can't be #1 so it can't be the frustum accelerating in the same direction as the force from #1. It should be in the opposite direction. Why do you think this force is in the opposite direction as #1 and what is the force acting on. Please clarify this by describing what your are observing that makes you come to this conclusion. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605614#msg1605614
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
Experimental data shows that Thrust force #1 can be measured on a virtually non moving scale or torsion pendulum, yet it can NOT support acceleration in the direction of the Thrust force vector (small to big).
Likewise experimental data shows the equal but opposite Reaction force will not produce any indication on a scale but will accelerate the EmDrive and associated mass.
The difference is when the EmDrive is setting on a scale it can't move so there are no internal Doppler shifts occurring.
When it is free to move as on a rotary test rig, and it starts moving, and there are internal Doppler shifts.
So yes the forces that an EmDrive generates are VERY strange, yet they are real and have been measured.
-
Again same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
A resonant cavities stored energy = input power * Q. Without resonance the cavity can't receive Rf energy. Resonance enables both Rf energy to enter the cavity and high Q allows the stored energy to be much greater than the input power.
Think of a cavity as a funny kind of capacitor that can only store energy at the resonant freq of the capacitor. Q is then like Farad and then the higher the Q, like the higher the Farad, the higher the stored energy inside.
It should be noted that resonance for a cavity needs some number of 1/2 guide waves to fit, end to end, inside the cavity between the physical end plates. If you measure the length of the cavity and calculate the length of a 1/2 wave external to the cavity, the 1/2 waves would not fit between the end plates. This is because inside the cavity the wavelength is longer than outside. These internal waves are called guide wave and their length varies as to the excited mode and cavity diameter. These images show the effect, where you can easily see that the guide wavelength is longer at the small end than at the large end. This altering guide wavelength vs diameter is the key to the EmDrive.
A wheel is also a kind of resonance. I never got a good answer to whether or not circulating waves in a wave guide with the proper asymmetry might be just as good as "resonance" in a cavity and a whole lot easier. :)
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
My question was about a system where you bounce high momentum balls off one side, and low momentum balls off the other side (tossing from in between the 2 sides). The first question was "which direction would it move in." So an answer would be of the form "Towards the large end that you are tossing the high momentum balls at" You have made no such response. The second question was about describing the forces in that situation, but you have not talked about forces on balls in your posts. The point is to agree on what force means in a similar situation to the emDrive.
I'd be thrilled it if the thread would take a break from debating Shawyer for a while. It's rarely been productive when its come up; it takes a lot of time to discuss and many a post is spent going back and forth in repetitive exchange, which distracts from the goal of figuring out if EM drives do anything, and how much of anything they might do.
Sorry for beating a dead horse with my questions. I am new to this thread. You guys have given me enough to chew on. Carry on.
I think the original post was more referring to my ongoing discussions with TheTraveller, which just go in circles, where he usually responds to my questions by repeating his original statements, which prompt me to point out the same issues. The main reason I respond is so people like you don't come by and only see the one side, since he hasn't understood my points up until now.
I'd gladly agree to stop talking about it if he stops posting self contradictory points about Shawyer's theory, and stick to experimental design discussions (flat/curved end plates, circulators etc.)
-
Let me ask you Traveler, have you directly observed such a change in the wavelength of the light in the cavity during free acceleration with something like a spectrum analyzer or a similar instrument?
I have yet to conduct acceleration studies. the changes would be VERY small and I suggest very difficult to detect. Sort of like the 1st Laser Ring Gyros trying to detect the phase shift induced from differential path lengths due to rotation.
The change in the internal dual travelling waves is what would be expected from existing physics. It is like saying have you accelerated away from a star and seen the light Red shift, then accelerated toward the start and seen the light Blue shift. I suggest we both accept the Doppler shifting would occur, without ever seeing it happen.
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
-
I think the original post was more referring to my ongoing discussions with TheTraveller, which just go in circles, where he usually responds to my questions by repeating his original statements, which prompt me to point out the same issues. The main reason I respond is so people like you don't come by and only see the one side, since he hasn't understood my points up until now.
I did comment on the ball example saying that the example you presented did not represent what happens inside the cavity.
Eventually you will be forced to accept the 2 VERY strange forces I have described, that the EmDrive generates, are very real and any theory of operation needs to describe why they are generated and act in the VERY strange way they do.
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
Yet the forces exist and have the characterists as claimed. Write what you will, the reality of the forces will not change.
BTW the last time I checked a Force can be a change in momentum, which is what happens inside the EmDrive.
-
I think the original post was more referring to my ongoing discussions with TheTraveller, which just go in circles, where he usually responds to my questions by repeating his original statements, which prompt me to point out the same issues. The main reason I respond is so people like you don't come by and only see the one side, since he hasn't understood my points up until now.
I did comment on the ball example saying that the example you presented did not represent what happens inside the cavity.
Eventually you will be forced to accept the 2 VERY strange forces I have described, that the EmDrive generates, are very real and any theory of operation needs to describe why they are generated and act in the VERY strange way they do.
And I explained that it produces the same net effect, reflecting things of different momentum off 2 opposing surfaces. If we can't agree on the description of forces in this simple system, how can we agree on the description for the emDrive?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
Yet the forces exist and have the characterists as claimed. Write what you will, the reality of the forces will not change.
BTW the last time I checked a Force can be a change in momentum, which is what happens inside the EmDrive.
You clearly still don't understand basic mechanics, which is why I want you to answer those 2 questions about a simple mechanical system. The only evidence for the contradictory forces I have seen is statements from you and Shawyer, and both you and Shawyer have demonstrated a lack of understanding of how to calculate forces.
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY at 8:50 he explains that the force against the sidewall is zero because the travelling wave is always traveling parallel to the sidewall. He shows a picture of a waveguide with convex and concave end plates which illustrates this point, but I don't understand why his demonstrator drives don't follow this design. (Every emdrive photo I've seen has flat endplates.)
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
Yes this above #2. Please be specific about #2. This force can't be #1 so it can't be the frustum accelerating in the same direction as the force from #1. It should be in the opposite direction. Why do you think this force is in the opposite direction as #1 and what is the force acting on. Please clarify this by describing what your are observing that makes you come to this conclusion. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605614#msg1605614
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
Experimental data shows that Thrust force #1 can be measured on a virtually non moving scale or torsion pendulum, yet it can NOT support acceleration in the direction of the Thrust force vector (small to big).
Likewise experimental data shows the equal but opposite Reaction force will not produce any indication on a scale but will accelerate the EmDrive and associated mass.
The difference is when the EmDrive is setting on a scale it can't move so there are no internal Doppler shifts occurring.
When it is free to move as on a rotary test rig, and it starts moving, and there are internal Doppler shifts.
So yes the forces that an EmDrive generates are VERY strange, yet they are real and have been measured.
What you are trying to say here is very different from what I expected however let me try and clarify this. It appears when you put the cavity on a scale and turn it on, that you claim a force is acting on the scale in the direction from small end to big end of the cavity.
However, when put the cavity on an arm, free to accelerate, the cavity will accelerate in the direction from big end to small.
This isn't making sense to me at the moment. I will have to think if there is a way to resolve this issue.
@ kaublezw: regardless of the statement there is a force on the side walls.
Also the Doppler-shift of light inside the cavity doesn't appear to have been directly observed with instruments yet but is speculated to be there.
-
Ok onto another subject that has been experimentally verified.
Thrust force vector swapping 180 deg when a dielectric in added at the small end of a tapered cavity in TE012 mode.
Yup you heard that right.
As per the attachment on the left is the guide wavelength that is generated without a dielectric at the small end. Note the 1/2 guide wave that is at the bottom half of the cavity is much shorter than the 1/2 guide wavelength that is at the small end of the cavity. Experimental data with a scale or torsion pendulum has shown the existence of a Thrust force small to big.
But when a dielectric is placed at the small end, the larger and smaller 1/2 guide waves swap 180 deg as does the measured Thrust force.
Here we have another set of data that can be used to try to understand what is generating the Thrust force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum.
We know the direction of the Thrust force from the EW cavity experiments with the dielectric at the small end as Big to Small as in the attachment. I can't share the non dielectric experimental data yet, which confirms other experimental data that a dielectric is NOT needed to generate the Thrust force in an EmDrive, but I can share the Thrust vector does indeed shift 180 deg from Big to Small to Small to Big
What this helps us to understand is the generation of the Thrust force and the direction of that force seems to be related to which ends of the cavity the longer 1/2 guide wave and shorter 1/2 guide wave occupies.
If anyone out there can explain this real Thrust force vector shift by other than Roger's theory, please share it.
-
What you are trying to say here is very different from what I expected however let me try and clarify this. It appears when you put the cavity on a scale and turn it on, that you claim a force is acting on the scale in the direction from small end to big end of the cavity.
However, when put the cavity on an arm, free to accelerate, the cavity will accelerate in the direction from big end to small.
This isn't making sense to me at the moment. I will have to think if there is a way to resolve this issue.
@ kaublezw: regardless of the statement there is a force on the side walls.
Yes there are forces on the side walls.
Yes the acceleration direction is opposite to that of the Thrust force generated on a scale.
Roger reported on this and measured it in his Demonstrator Static tests as attached which had a measured vector Small to Big. He also commented in his various papers that when the Demonstrator EmDrive was placed on the rotary test rig, it accelerated Big to Small.
-
The most important thing I think we could do would be to eliminate probable errors from observation. Some issues would be thermal convection of air, thermal expansion, and magnetic field interaction. For all we know some of these observations are from us observing these sources of error.
Maybe a test of a cavity with battery mounted in a vacuum ferro-magnetic canister on a pendulum arm. The pendulum arm with cavity also inside a larger fero-magnetic box, such that magnetic fields outside are separated from ones inside. The battery eliminates thermal expansion of cables providing power.
Find the resonant frequency of the pendulum arm and set the cavity to pulse at that resonant frequency to reach maximum osculation.
This would give a freely accelerating EM drive supposedly.
Stop the arm from moving and the measure the flexing of the arm, possibly using an interferometer. This gives a non-accelerating EM drive. This way we aren't changing the measuring device from a scale to an arm. The device remains instead on the arm of the pendulum.
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
I know the question is for Meberbs, and I am not Meberbs, but I shall give my own answer for this interesting question.
My answer is that we don't know. There are several possible evolutions for the motion over time, following different theories. Without being exhaustive, here are a few of the possible solutions. I start the most pessimist, and go to the most exotic solution.
1 : Emdrive works only by thermals, or by any terrestrial artifact. The probe shall give no thrust as soon as it is in space, and the thrust shall stay to zero all the time. CoE satisfied.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
In fact, it would work like a man on a skateboard with a winch and a harpoon navigating on the roads. When he want to accelerate in a direction, he harpoon a car, than he can use his winch to go closer to the car.
If the car is not moving relatively to the road, he moves only by using the winch, and in that case the Kinetic energy gained is limited to P/V in the road reference frame. At the opposite, if the car is going in the right direction, the man on the skateboard can get speed (and Kinetic energy in the road reference frame for free)
If the drive works like that, the possibilities depends on the distance of the corpses that can be used, and their effectives positions. It would be like navigating on the sea with a sail boat. The speed depends on the winds. Their forces, and their directions. A sail boat can't just go in straight line at constant speed from it's departure to it's destination. CoE satisfied
3 : Emdrive works because it is pushing against an uknown type of aether. The space being like a road, with a local prefered reference frame. It does not means that it is absolute. For example, it may be the Quasilocal Center-of-Mass for Teleparallel Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403101
If this quasilocal center of mass could be used like a reference frame for this new kind of aether, globally, it would not moves much compared with the near masses. Probably Only a few hundreds of kilometers per second for our earth.
In fact, space would be like the water of a river. It is easier to go in the direction of the current.
In that case, the Emship performance should depends it's direction, and the thrust should be limited to P/V in the local space referential. But the thrust can be superior to P/V in the right direction, in an earth referential, as the energy is stolen to the current.. CoE satisfied.
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
6 : The emdrive works because it harvest energy from a degradable Quantum Vacuum. It steals energy to the Quantuum Vacuum.
6a) It can also give constant thrust for constant imput power, but degrade for long term the Quantum vacuum, as we do with the Oil under the ground. CoE satisfied.
6b) The Quantum Vacuum regenerates quickly without stealing energy to something else. So, the Quantum Vacuum can give energy from nowhere, or from outside of our 3D+time universe. In that case CoE is broken from the viewpoint of our universe. But if our 3D+time universe is a part of a 4D+time universe, CoE may still apply in this bigger universe.
7)We live in a simulated universe (the creators of the simulation merit the name of gods) and the calculus are made with a limited precision. The emdrive is a way of using the approximations in a way that violates the general laws.
Gilbertdrive, thanks for the thoughtful answer!
I'm inclined to think in terms of 4 or 5. I'm highly skeptical of the so-called quantum vacuum. If we live in a simulation they are probably malicious, making Shawyer get big numbers and NASA get small numbers. ;D
There is also the Finnish concept that the EmDrive creates and releases some new form of photon pairs that pass out of the cavity and carry an enhanced momentum. In that case it's created locally and not with some interaction with the universe. I realize that some or perhaps most will persist in thinking that anything that creates more momentum than light does from pure energy will violate CoE until a probe is sent to Alpha Centauri and is shown to 'violate' CoE as it's commonly held because it's radio signal shows it's moving faster than its electrical power can account for in the earth frame.
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place.
My post is not representative of the theories being developped here. I think that all these I mentionned were already taken into account here, but some that were more developped here are not mentionned in my post. It should not be taken like a summary, but only a small sample.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
Of course, the cases 2 to 7 involves new physics. The Emdrive doesn't work in standard physics.
Also, can you be more precise when you mean that Gravity is isotropic ?
Do you means that the matter repartition in the universe is supposed to be isotropic at large scales, or do you means a property of gravity itself ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
How can we know it ?
If we are in simulated world, it may have approximations. it was the principle of the theory number 7. If the universe has an infinite precision, and no approximation at all, of course the theory 7 doesn't work.
I should have mentioned in my post that the theories 2 to 7 all needed new physics. It was so evident in my mind that I did no mention it. None of them could work with standard physics.
Simulated world?
Unfortunately, now you are moving the goalposts, by saying "How can we know it?"
If EM drive should work, it will be because of the rules of this universe, regardless of the metaphysical question of how we can know something in general.
Even if this universe should turn out to be a simulated one, the simulation includes those rules which govern EM drive. Those rules do not include "rounding off".
My list, from the begining, was a list of possible theories, that all needed new physics except the theory 1, and I kept the most exotic for the end.
These different theories are probably incompatible. If one is true, most of the others should be false.
I never told that I was defendig the theory of the "Emdrive working by rounding off exploit". But I maintain it is not yet proven false.
For example, if we want simulate a simple mini universe, constitued of only 3 identical atoms, with only one force, the gravity, we can't, even with the best computers, make a simulation of this without rounding off. All the complex simulations that we do nowdays are full of rounding off.
So, it is not a priori impossible that our universe uses rounding off. Of course, we can say if we want that this rounding off is by definition a part of the simulation rules.
-
This EM Drive topic has been incredibly well behaved (from what I can tell, lack of mod reports, etc.) over recent months, but I'll just remind members that there's clearly opposing camps on this subject. So remember, keep it civil (which I believe you all are) and avoid the trap of having to repeat yourself too many times, especially with the attachments *cough* TheTraveller, ;)
Make your case and follow up questions, but understand some people are convinced this works and some people are convinced it doesn't...but as with all threads on here, 99.9 percent of the "views" are from people not actually posting (guests, people reading, etc.) So you're mainly aiming to convince them, not people posting the opposing view.
As you were ;)
I wish some would stop using phrases such as "You clearly still don't understand .....". It demeaning.
-
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
I understood. You have thought to a precise way of manipulating the gravity. And your conclusion about it is reasonnable. But it maybe other ways of manipulating the gravity.
I was most thinking about directing the gravity of other corpses, to use it like with gravity assist.
For example, if I direct a telescope on another planet, from my viewpoint, looking in the telescope, the planet seems to be closer. Even if the planet was emitting light in an isotropic way.
Maybe it is possible to do the same with gravity. As the telescope allows to magnify a small part of the sky, maybe a device could allows to make another planet closer for gravity. A gravity telescope. The ship does not need to gain any kg, the idea is not to emit gravity in an anisotropic way, but to collect gravity in an anisotropic way.
Of course, it needs new physics, new laws for gravity.
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place.
My post is not representative of the theories being developped here. I think that all these I mentionned were already taken into account here, but some that were more developped here are not mentionned in my post. It should not be taken like a summary, but only a small sample.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
Of course, the cases 2 to 7 involves new physics. The Emdrive doesn't work in standard physics.
Also, can you be more precise when you mean that Gravity is isotropic ?
Do you means that the matter repartition in the universe is supposed to be isotropic at large scales, or do you means a property of gravity itself ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
Todd,
I have been wondering, if we call Q the quality factor for the whole cavity, what should be the proper relationship between ζ and Q ?
should it be Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal volume dV]/[Integral of dV]
Assuming that all the dissipation occurs over a surface, with equal skin depth d throughout
Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal surface dS]*d/([Integral over dS]*d)
= [Integral of 1/(2ζ)over internal surface dS]/InternalSurface
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place.
My post is not representative of the theories being developped here. I think that all these I mentionned were already taken into account here, but some that were more developped here are not mentionned in my post. It should not be taken like a summary, but only a small sample.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
Of course, the cases 2 to 7 involves new physics. The Emdrive doesn't work in standard physics.
Also, can you be more precise when you mean that Gravity is isotropic ?
Do you means that the matter repartition in the universe is supposed to be isotropic at large scales, or do you means a property of gravity itself ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I'd say something they interpreted as gravity waves was seen but it's indirect evidence and requires, shall we say, rather large objects.... ;D
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference!
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference!
Well, true about the need for our most sensitive interferometers - but the event was ~ 1.4B light years off [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves]. That's a big distance attenuation factor, even for a peak radiated power of ~10^49W.
Given much closer proximity, if something odd is happening to gravity in the frustum (I have no position on this), it might be instrumentally accessible.
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference!
Well, true about the need for our most sensitive interferometers - but the event was ~ 1.4B light years off [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves]. That's a big distance attenuation factor, even for a peak radiated power of ~10^49W.
Given much closer proximity, if something odd is happening to gravity in the frustum (I have no position on this), it might be instrumentally accessible.
Cavendish's experiment measured a force of 1.74×10-7 N, which is 0.174 micro Newtons, right? That was the natural "isotropic" force of gravity between the large and small lead balls in his experiment. The small lead balls are roughly the same mass as a typical EMDrive frustum, so forces in the same order of magnitude as the Cavendish experiment should be expected. If the energy and shape of the frustum somehow modulates the natural gravitational field in or around the frustum, it would take very little deviation from the natural shape to produce very anomalous results.
Gravity waves produced by natural phenomena are one thing, but what if it is possible to produce high frequency gravity waves?
-
The most important thing I think we could do would be to eliminate probable errors from observation. Some issues would be thermal convection of air, thermal expansion, and magnetic field interaction. For all we know some of these observations are from us observing these sources of error.
Maybe a test of a cavity with battery mounted in a vacuum ferro-magnetic canister on a pendulum arm. The pendulum arm with cavity also inside a larger fero-magnetic box, such that magnetic fields outside are separated from ones inside. The battery eliminates thermal expansion of cables providing power.
Find the resonant frequency of the pendulum arm and set the cavity to pulse at that resonant frequency to reach maximum osculation.
This would give a freely accelerating EM drive supposedly.
Stop the arm from moving and the measure the flexing of the arm, possibly using an interferometer. This gives a non-accelerating EM drive. This way we aren't changing the measuring device from a scale to an arm. The device remains instead on the arm of the pendulum.
My memory might be a bit hazy, but...
Problems of this sort - at least with regard to the Eagleworks setup (back when Paul March still visited with tidbits) were exhaustively gone over back in threads 2-3. At least two regular posters here made extensive mathematical analysis's of these issues and concluded that while such forces were present, they were not enough, in and of themselves, to account for the 'anomalous force.' (by orders of magnitude, though my recollection here is especially hazy.) This applies, of course only to EW's tests as of about a year ago, maybe a bit later.
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
How is this not an an expression of d'Alembert's Principle, where he's got the direction of the "reaction force" inverted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle?wprov=sfla1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle?wprov=sfla1)
mh
-
I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
How is this not an an expression of d'Alembert's Principle, where he's got the direction of the "reaction force" inverted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle?wprov=sfla1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle?wprov=sfla1)
mh
If by reaction force, you mean the m*a term, then what TT is doing is flipping the sign of it as you say, which takes you from a general statement of one of the most basic physics principles to something that is utterly inconsistent with the very definition of force. This is usually what happens when you randomly flip a single minus sign in a physics equation, you get a wrong answer.
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
Todd,
I have been wondering, if we call Q the quality factor for the whole cavity, what should be the proper relationship between ζ and Q ?
should it be Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal volume dV]/[Integral of dV]
Assuming that all the dissipation occurs over a surface, with equal skin depth d throughout
Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal surface dS]*d/([Integral over dS]*d)
= [Integral of 1/(2ζ)over internal surface dS]/InternalSurface
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack. ;)
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
Todd,
I have been wondering, if we call Q the quality factor for the whole cavity, what should be the proper relationship between ζ and Q ?
should it be Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal volume dV]/[Integral of dV]
Assuming that all the dissipation occurs over a surface, with equal skin depth d throughout
Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal surface dS]*d/([Integral over dS]*d)
= [Integral of 1/(2ζ)over internal surface dS]/InternalSurface
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack. ;)
Todd, I can see major, pointless confusion arising here. I suggest you define terms to avoid such during your next round of equation posting in the interest of clarity.
-
A tale of TWO very strange force, equal in force but opposite in direction.
Any theory to solve why the EmDrive works must address how these two very strange forces are generated and why their directions are what they are.
That they exist has been proven. Additional high quality test data has recently surfaced that supports the non dielectric Thrust Force direction small to big when measured in a static condition as in the left static test condition.
So guys now is the time to make your favourite theory explain the attached test data that clearly shows the TWO forces that an EmDrive can generate, Thrust & Reaction, work in opposite directions.
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
I'll add, since in a non-dielectric filled hollow metallic waveguide the losses are all in the copper, and since higher frequencies will tend to stay in the apex where lower frequencies the base, and there is more copper losses in the larger conductors, the dissipation is asymmetric; greater losses at lower frequency. Consequently we have a rocket nozzle that preferentially exhausts the red-shifted lower sideband, with a resultant slow traveling wave at the group velocity towards the base, IOW thrust.
The light acquires "mass" as a standing wave, proportional to Q, and is exhausted proportional to damping, with the exhaust velocity the group velocity.
A must watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogKKjpQvfuM at 18:20; Nuclear rocket scientist Geoffrey Landis describes optimum exhaust velocity for a constant-power electric engine.
The frustrum is an opto-mechanical impedance matching transducer for photons, the way gears are for bikes and cars, and transformers or resonant circuits or matching networks are for RF circuits.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? No, I don't think I ever have.
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall GR being used to handle electromagnetics problems in a tech journal article.
The approach and math can be very useful but really, the forces and momentum is electromagnetic, not gravitational. The dispersion and forces on the frustrum are electromagnetic, and not due to curved space, or time, even though mathematically analogous. Its not until the last equation you invoke "G" for divergence, and the equation seems to say gravitational divergence is equivalent to electromagnetic divergence.
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
If this was any experiment other than an EMDrive experiment, this would be evidence that there was a problem with the test setup. When the forces you measure are inconsistent using different measurement techniques / conditions, this indicates that at least one of those setups has a problem.
I'm not sure why, for an EmDrive experiment, we assume that "how they work is VERY STRANGE." Isn't it much more likely (Occam's Razor) that the experiments need refinement? By allowing ourselves to explain away unusual results with new, very strange forces, we are missing the opportunity to fine-tune our experiments and possibly find truly new and exciting data.
I'm on the fence as to whether this device works or not. I'd like to believe those with the capabilities beyond my own are continuing to dig for the answers. But I think we need to have realistic experiments, verifiable by others (scientific method, right?), to ensure we aren't chasing down rabbit holes.
Just an observation from someone without the full scientific background of many on this forum, but a good feel for what makes sense.
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
Here is the issue.
Many theories try to explain the Reaction / Acceleration force (big to small) as a reaction against some external momentum dump.
Ok fair enough.
But now to explain the non accelerative Thrust force (small to big) that has a different direction?
Do we accept there are TWO momentum dumps, one that works for the Accelerative / Reaction force and then another that works for the 180 deg different Static Thrust force?
I don't think so.
Phil
-
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? No, I don't think I ever have.
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall GR being used to handle electromagnetics problems in a tech journal article.
The approach and math can be very useful but really, the forces and momentum is electromagnetic, not gravitational. The dispersion and forces on the frustrum are electromagnetic, and not due to curved space, or time, even though mathematically analogous. Its not until the last equation you invoke "G" for divergence, and the equation seems to say gravitational divergence is equivalent to electromagnetic divergence.
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
Of course, in my model gravity is going to be an "expected" property of the Standard Model of particle physics, once this phenomenon is fully understood by the main stream, and they drop the interpretation that space-time is curved. It is "conformally flat" in my model.
-
@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself :(
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
-
@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself :(
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is unlikely.
-
@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself :(
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Or the results are correct and you can't explain them?
BTW I have other experimental data that shows a TE102 non dielectric cavity generates a Thrust force (small to big) when tested on a basically non moving torsion pendulum (fancy scale). Put a dielectric at the small end, which swaps which end has the smaller and longer 1/2 guide waves and the Thrust force reverses Big to Small.
It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data.
-
Gravity waves produced by natural phenomena are one thing, but what if it is possible to produce high frequency gravity waves?
I can't see how microwave-frequency changes in Energy density in a frustrum can do anything else but induce microwave frequency changes in the gravitational field, which seem bound to radiate away. Scale is another matter.
Egan's resonant cavity analysis (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html)) gives roughly milli-Joules per kW for the total energy stored in a cavity. So in round numbers 10^-3 Joules for a DIY experiment, about 3*10^-20 Kg of mass-energy. Gravity from that is going to be tough to spot, even if the density changes were all in phase (which they aren't).
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is far reaching.
There is no overturning of known science. The effect of a reducing cavity diameter reducing EmWave momentum/radiation pressure has been known since 1950. This is just an old effect that Roger discovered and used to create the EmDrive.
BTW have you actually read the Demonstrator EmDrive test report and seen the test setup?
There are more EmDrive experiments that show the Thrust force in a non dielectric cavity, on a scale / torsion pendulum, and has a direction Small to Big.
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is far reaching.
There is no overturning of known science. The effect of a reducing cavity diameter reducing EmWave momentum/radiation pressure has been known since 1950. This is just an old effect that Roger discovered and used to create the EmDrive.
BTW have you actually read the Demonstrator EmDrive test report and seen the test setup?
There are more EmDrive experiments that show the Thrust force in a non dielectric cavity, on a scale / torsion pendulum, and has a direction Small to Big.
If it's all as definitive as you say, surely you can readily create and demonstrate your own, third party replication and prove the scaling factors rather than relying exclusively on Shawyer's own material?
-
@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself :(
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Or the results are correct and you can't explain them?
BTW I have other experimental data that shows a TE102 non dielectric cavity generates a Thrust force (small to big) when tested on a basically non moving torsion pendulum (fancy scale). Put a dielectric at the small end, which swaps which end has the smaller and longer 1/2 guide waves and the Thrust force reverses Big to Small.
It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data.
Putting a dielectric at one end is the type of change where it is no longer the same device, and multiple theories are possible to show why that could change the force direction. Your torsion balance result contradicts the torsion balance results of everyone else, so this is not good news for the emDrive. If it was driven in a different mode shape than the experiments everyone has data for, then there is still room for a mode-shape dependent explanation.
"It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data." - This is what you have done with all null results.
There is no overturning of known science. ...
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers.
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers.
It still sounds too good to be true. The absence of third party proof of Shawyer's lofty claims of drive scaling and performance characteristics does not help. Your own, prior statements of upcoming replications that remain to take place and have no timeline or schedule to follow haven't helped, either. :-\ I need more than Shawyer's assurances to take it as fact.
-
...
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack. ;)
The great polymath John von Neumann famously told Claude Shannon at MIT to use "entropy" as the name for his new uncertainty function:
You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.
in Reflections : Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner (1967), p. 261
;)
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers.
This sort of statement just feels like bad science. No empirical evidence has been provided for many of the "Private" experiment results. Nothing against the any EMDrive experimenter or traveler, but saying that it will not change reality without presenting extraordinary evidence rubs me a bit wrong.
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people.
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people.
Are you referring to the stories I heard regarding metal microwave cavities being grossly distorted by huge EM pressures?
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
Are you referring to the stories I heard regarding metal microwave cavities being grossly distorted by huge EM pressures?
Am referring to own experience of non-Lorenz force explainable hundred newton "jumps" in superconducting magnets intended for an accelerator, in the environment of a vacuum microwave cavity. Won't detail it further. Limits.
Am aware of many other different anomalies encountered, of lesser scale. With other systems of vastly different design. Multiple phenomena.
Suggest perhaps EMdrive is just a more accessible means to experience a related phenomena. Perhaps too accessible for safety - agree with rfmwguy on the need for extreme caution. Too easy too "cook" self with.
Again, a thank you to those encouraging proper scientific discourse/analysis. And restraint.
-
<SNIP> Won't detail it further. Limits.
Am aware of many other different anomalies encountered, of lesser scale. With other systems of vastly different design. Multiple phenomena.
Can you please elucidate? I'm aware that English is not the native language for many members of this fascinating forum. But mathematics is. I'm also aware that the US Navy rail gun research had to "default" to earlier Maxwellian equations to explain why their efforts often failed catastophically under mega-ampere induction.
But chopped syntax with dropped hints that "I know something you don't know" are counter-productive. Some few members of this forum are notorious for this tactic. I beg you not to include yourself among them!
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form."
Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
Edit: corrected spelling aerror (sic), added social comment, and added apparently obligatory quote from someone who apparently once did one neat thing ;)
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view
You can backtrack this "science" to the original recent source considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). Given our recent ability to make the quantum level macroscopic, well,....think about the ramifications....
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is unlikely.
Based on your concerns, I made a special video this past summer, monitoring heat rise on the power supply cable 4 inches from the magnetron
http://youtu.be/D-VGF1ViqjU
-
Question: I know the all copper EMDrive acts pretty much like a Faraday cage. But, given all the power injected... is it possible that the frustum can't effectively shield it all. I mean, it requires a lots of free charges and with mobility into the megahertz.. Is there any capacitance like induced charges produced on the outside of the frustum? Has anything (Charges) been detected outside the frustum, apart from heat?
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
Hi MWVP,
Up for a late night coco then back to sleep.
This was a very nice summary of Todd's theory and showed a great depth of understanding, kudos to you. I agree with all that you said until the last sentence.
It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
The small deviations that showed just above statistical error (something like 40x) was a data flag that there might be something going on, especially when combined with theories like Todd's. Important enough to follow up with a future White–Juday warp-field interferometer test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Results. *
This is why one of first the tests I'm planning after I get the new lab finished and some new hardware installed is alightly modified White–Juday warp-field interferometer using Quartz rods (which I have already in my build, one through the center of the cavity and one outside. By using matched evacuated hollow rods with optical capped ends I'll address the issues of heated air. I told Todd and others that I would be testing theories and this could provide some invaluable data. I'm very surprised this has been one of the flags that has not been pursued by others that showed a positive result.
Coco is finished, back to sleep.
My Best,
Shell
* Interferometer experiment with an EmDrive
Eagleworks warp-field interferometer test setup.
During the first two weeks of April 2015, scientists fired lasers through the EmDrive's resonance chamber[clarification needed] and noticed highly significant variations in the path time. The readings indicated that some of the laser pulses traveled longer, possibly pointing to a slight warp bubble inside the resonance chamber of the device. However, a small rise in ambient air temperature inside the chamber was also recorded, which could possibly have caused the recorded fluctuation in speeds of the laser pulses. According to Paul March, a NASA JSC researcher, the experiment was to be verified inside a vacuum chamber to remove all interference of air. This was done at the end of April 2015.[14][15] White does not think, however, that the measured change in path length is due to transient air heating, because the visibility threshold is 40 times larger than the predicted effect from air.[citation needed]
The experiment used a short, cylindrical, aluminum resonant cavity excited at a natural frequency of 1.48 GHz with an input power of 30 watts, over 27000 cycles of data (each 1.5 s cycle energizing the system for 0.75 s and de-energizing it for 0.75 s), which were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.[16] (bold added)
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf)
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li67qzfsBaM
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive?
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li67qzfsBaM
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive?
This same device or a device almost identical was just addressed in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41475.0
Long story short, it is not propellent-less and would not work in a frictionless vacuum. More of a reaction wheel that is pushing off its surroundings.
-
Curious what this group has to say about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li67qzfsBaM
Is this the gyroscope version of the emdrive?
It's a variant of the Dean drive. My dad, a brilliant tinkerer but no physicist, was fascinated with the concept and we argued endlessly about whether or not it could work in space. I was a physics major so you know my position. In the end, he had so much fun playing around I just let him. Once he made a HO model train run on the Dean drive concept. At least this guy is having fun.
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view
You can backtrack this "science" to the original recent source considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). Given our recent ability to make the quantum level macroscopic, well,....think about the ramifications....
I have to laugh when I read "considering a possible quantum level violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (i.e., the ability to actually build a Maxwell's demon at the quantum level). ".
It's not that I reject that, it's just that it so far behind and removed from recent developments in 2nd law research. A new macro scale physical process called Epicatalysis has been discovered and been realized in systems that effectively organize ambient heat into a permanent, steady state temperature differences capable in principle of driving heat engines. Differences on the order of 100K were seen in high temperature enclosed blackbody systems and there is emerging evidence of the effect at room temperature, though weaker so far.
The data suggest heat recyclers are possible in principle that could endlessly recycle ambient and waste heat into useful work. This work, which has been peer reviewed and published, requires rethinking about the nature of the 2nd law and its universality. I think that's happening albeit very slowly but most people aren't even aware of these advances yet.
Such devices, if successfully developed, could power everything, homes, cars, even jets. Imagine cars zipping along sucking energy out of the ambient air and leaving just a stream of cold air. Jets streaking across the sky doing the same at higher rates. Great ships taking energy from the water. Self-powered desalination plants. The ultimate green energy source on earth is ambient environmental heat.
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf)
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible.
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf)
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible.
I find it interesting that you are willing to accept Mills' Black/Brilliant Light claims, yet consider ECat a fraud. They both score close to maximum on my personal fraud-likelihood scale.
To link this post somehow to space: is the second author of that Ecat paper the cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov? Even the first letter of the patronymic is the same.
-
...
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
If the conventional theory, and my understanding is correct, gravity - curved spacetime, has the property of dispersing and refracting matter-deBroglie and particle-compton waves, but not massless bosons. One of the tests for photon mass, to something like ~ 10^-30 IIRC, is that cosmic extreme gamma and correlated optical photons were not found to have different times of arrival. If they has mass, intervening gravity (from galaxies?) would have bent them differentially.
In a dispersive waveguide, em waves/photons of different frequency travel at different speed, hence dispersion.
I wish I had been following your threads more closely rather than just rapidly glossing over, but I get the idea a few pages back, your notion of damping is a reduction (damping?) in the E and H fields (Abraham momenta) but conserved (not dissipated as heat) as D and B flux (Minkowski momenta) in either gravitationally compressed (PV ZPF) spacetime, or a waveguide.
Now having just agreed yesterday that Q endows photons with mass, moreover the reverberation, the standing wave is angular momentum, you could say that the dispersion of such "mass" is tantamount to gravitation, obeying similar equations But it really isn't. It's not effectively penetrating outside the waveguide like a micro black-hole or gravity waves could, its not curved spacetime or compressed PV-ZPF. It hardly affected White's warpfield interferometer.
The bandwidth of gravity is wide enough to affect all matter and frequencies with "equal" acceleration. So although c/K varies in a gravitational field, the acceleration of test particles is not dependent on frequency or mass.
Again the only difference between what you're saying about gravity and what happens inside the frustum is frequency and bandwidth. If the frequency were such that copper is transparent, then the effects would be external too, but there would not be much resonance if the energy could escape that way.
Atoms are resonant oscillators. They fall due to asymmetrical damping, where the damping factor is 2GM/r*c2 and M is the gravitational center of mass. We "interpret" this as curved space-time. It is one interpretation, ONLY. There are others.
-
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
These things pop up all the time, and sometimes people take the "incident ball" and run with it. But because it cannot be analyzed well enough, these never really go anywhere. Because to get "enough" out of them, you need to exploit the rest of physics/engineering to do so.
This does not discourage some - they cling to the artifact, figuring that they'll exploit its results, enhance, and get the win. And somehow after the fact they'll be able to reconcile it. Perhaps.
We don't call that the scientific process.
Others use this as a means of ridicule, even when there is an observable effect.
Also not the scientific process.
I am grateful for the presence of talented people to endure and get to the bottom of things that no respectable research grant will fund. Because we might find things that way - like field propulsion.
However, only the scientific process will yield trustable, explainable, scientific results that an engineer can build a propulsion system with. Otherwise its too easy to fool oneself/others.
And that's the source of the rage/ridicule for anything in this category. Sad that's not obvious to talented people.
I also remember hearing rumors about forces in the SSC and wondered at that time how much was fact and how much was fiction.
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5230204_1436438764.938.jpg)
Nice write up Space Ghost.
Shell
-
Slightly off topic, but I'm assuming the Emdrive will still need some source of input energy? How about 1 watt input for 70 kilowatts output?
I've watched the Rossi saga for years, and years ago concluded he was a crook. Shame, because there has been decent work done on LENR, and there do seem to be unexplained effects which could be valuable. This is a report into one of the most convincing, from a group at SPAWAR, now sadly shut down.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf)
Rossi has done a disservice to the subject.
I'm partial to Brilliant Light Power's controversial hydrino* reaction myself. It's a perfect power source for the EmDrive for terrestrial and operations to and from orbit. It also shares a similar controversy about its mere existence which has a certain symmetry to it and would amount to poetic justice as the power source of the EmDrive. The main difference I think is that hydrino based energy has been demonstrated at a much more powerful level than the EmDrive has at least so far, being megawatt power generation (light and heat, not electrical yet) and continuous power generation for extended times, like hours on end.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
* For the uninitiated, the hydrino state is a new form of hydrogen in which the electron is induced to undergo a transition to a lower stable state than the traditional ground state. In effect, the usual ground state is only the first in a series of stable states but is the only one accessible by pure photonic transition. The others require a non photonic collisional mechanism with an appropriate catalyst to absorb the required energy. The lower states are like an energy staircase and are described by fractional quantum numbers 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... A transition from H(1) to H(1/4) releases a net amount of energy of 204 ev per atom. Enough to make a process that starts from simple water and yields copious amounts of energy possible.
I find it interesting that you are willing to accept Mills' Black/Brilliant Light claims, yet consider ECat a fraud. They both score close to maximum on my personal fraud-likelihood scale.
To link this post somehow to space: is the second author of that Ecat paper the cosmonaut Vladimir Dzhanibekov? Even the first letter of the patronymic is the same.
I didn't say what I thought of Rossi and E-cat. But since you assumed, I used to run around claiming Rossi was a "convicted con man" which is true but misleading as his conviction was not about defrauding investors with energy scams but about dumping garbage. Now, I don't say that anymore however I am very leery of the whole Rossi business. Rossi is secretive and combative, not a good combination.
There may be something to LENR as thousands of scientists seem to think there is yet they still haven't nailed it down into a process that is comprehensible and a copious producer of energy. I've watched Mills for over 15 years and am more convinced now than before he has discovered what he says he has. He has done several public demonstrations of the process, each one more convincing than before with several methods of data collection and outside experts testifying. The EUV spectra alone should be convincing that new physics is going on. Mills work is peer reviewed and published. Now, the process has been developed to the very brink of commercialization. I hope widespread reception of the hydrino discovery is at hand.
There is an excellent new book available at Amazon called Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy by Brett Holverstott who served as an intern at Brilliant Light for a few years. The book puts Mills' 25 year odyssey in perspective and shows how many different incarnations of the reaction worked, yet proved to have not enough energy density or power to be commercializable.
To quote Mills himself:
It took an enormous amount of work, $100 million and two decades, but we have found something that can replace fire, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, bio fuels and more.
I see similarities between Mills and Shawyer, both are visionaries, but the more advanced by far is Mills.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time warping. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical world called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the world called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equation are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
I'd refer to this earlier exchange (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1606147#msg1606147) by Rodal and Warptech:
...
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack. ;)
The great polymath John von Neumann famously told Claude Shannon at MIT to use "entropy" as the name for his new uncertainty function:
You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.
in Reflections : Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner (1967), p. 261
;)
-
Talking of LENR here is a pretty recent New Scientist article about the current state of play.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/amp/?client=safari
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Finally! Someone who sees the light. :) You must be an engineer.
It has always been understood that General Relativity is a classical "approximation" of an unknown Quantum theory of gravity. I offer a quantum theory of gravity, consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics. It results in the exact same solutions that fit all the known, experimental data but most GR theorists would rather try to quantize an unobservable "space-time" manifold, than truly understand the behavior of the matter they observe. They invest so much effort into learning the mathematics that they are reluctant to consider anything else, except GR.
One would think that a black hole will curve space-time as much as it can be curved. Right? And we use the same Schwarzschild solution to describe the gravitational field around the Earth, and tell everyone that gravity is due to space-time curvature. However, what most don't know is that the Schwarzschild solution is as flat as the Minkowski solution. Space-time is not "really" curved at all, it is "Conformally Flat". Which means, it's the same flat Minkowski metric, but it is "scaled" by a constant factor at each gravitational potential (altitude).
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything. The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Finally! Someone who sees the light. :) You must be an engineer.
It has always been understood that General Relativity is a classical "approximation" of an unknown Quantum theory of gravity. I offer a quantum theory of gravity, consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics. It results in the exact same solutions that fit all the known, experimental data but most GR theorists would rather try to quantize an unobservable "space-time" manifold, than truly understand the behavior of the matter they observe. They invest so much effort into learning the mathematics that they are reluctant to consider anything else, except GR.
One would think that a black hole will curve space-time as much as it can be curved. Right? And we use the same Schwarzschild solution to describe the gravitational field around the Earth, and tell everyone that gravity is due to space-time curvature. However, what most don't know is that the Schwarzschild solution is as flat as the Minkowski solution. Space-time is not "really" curved at all, it is "Conformally Flat". Which means, it's the same flat Minkowski metric, but it is "scaled" by a constant factor at each gravitational potential (altitude).
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the radiative dampening theory is that powerful, shouldn't you be able to solve what's going on past the Event Horizon of a black hole?
The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
"Give the people what they want, and they'll come."
-
...
So those who believe that gravity can only be described as space-time curvature, need to open their minds and see that this is just ONE interpretation of the experimental data. The Geometrical approach to gravity is an approximation, as is the Polarizable vacuum approach. It holds true for what we can measure to date, but it is not the Quantum mechanical mechanism, the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, of how gravity actually affects matter. This, is best described for engineering purposes as, "Radiative Damping" or an "attenuation (Neper) frequency" acting on the wave functions.
The "fluctuation-dissipation" relationship is formally required for the stability of atoms in QED, in the Standard Model. it is built in. I'm not changing anything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the radiative dampening theory is that powerful, shouldn't you be able to solve what's going on past the Event Horizon of a black hole?
The main stream physics community does not understand what happens when these two are not in perfect equilibrium, because GR has led them all bemused, down the wrong rabbit hole.
"Give the people what they want, and they'll come."
If "Critically Damped" is ς2=Rs/R = 1, then anything past the event horizon is simply "Over damped". Meaning, the amplitude exponentially decays to zero. What else would you expect?
In terms of the EM drive, this is the situation you have when your input source does not have enough power to overcome the losses in the cavity.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
I don't believe that the use of terms like space-time and curvature is a problem in discussions between most individuals with a solid background in the underlying theory.
I am pretty sure that for posters like Dr. Rodal, WarpTech, notsosureofit and many others I am certain, the exact meaning of those terms is not the same as it often seems they are in many open public discussions. The curvature of space-time, curvature and space-time itself are labels within the context of a more comprehensive geometric model that describes the tidal effects of gravitation, that begins with general relativity. The terms space-time and curvature are not the observables in nature. The tidal effect of garvitation is the observable. The rest is how we do our best to describe what we can observe.
The real problem is that very often in open discussions not everyone has the same or even similar backgrounds in the underlying theoretical model(s). It is true that words usually have exact meanings, but in the case of discussions including terms like the curvature of space-time, unless one has an understanding of the underlying geometry and math, the exact meaning is often misunderstood.
I once told WarpTech that I liked the way he thinks. Not because I am convinced that his theory is the answer, but because in reading his posts it seems clear to me that.., even though it is currently unobservable, he is attempting to describe how resonant microwaves interact with the frustum, to produce thrust... And then he defines an observable or observable components, and attempts to describe an underlying geometry/theory consistent with existing scientific understanding.
BTW the issue extends far beyond just those terms. When you get down to brass tacks our fundamental definitions and understanding of CoM is rooted in classical Newtonian mechanics, relativistically modified within the context of special relativity, while the frontier of the science we are discussing is pushing the limits of the environment that what we think of as the basic laws of physics, were framed and formed.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Physics is the study of our relationship with our reality. In that sense, GR is O.K. as a descriptive context for observed physical events. You are right, space is just a concept. But physics cannot say what makes up the universe. Something or "stuff" makes the universe. Because maths are based on logic and maths are unreasonably effective in describing the behavior of the universe ... then the universe works on (simple) principles of logic. Such a system operational on logic can afford that there be only one type of stuff. Everything points to a sort of time process (dynamical) being that stuff. In the words of Bill Unruh ... " gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place.."
But, you have to remember that asking questions about the stuff of the universe belongs to metaphysics, NOT to physics. This is the essential part that is left for us to understand about the universe and it is off limit to physics.
My essay on the subject is attached. Text supplied with my poster presentation at the 2016 Science of Time conference. (No, it was not published into the proceedings ... deemed off topic... Most other where about atomic clocks, leap second, sundials, time standards etc. )
Marcel,
-
From 'Space Ghost 1962'
Long before Shawyer (and others) we've had anomalous behavior with magnetic fields and microwaves.
One such was with the SSC magnets. A lame joke at the time was about using it for propellantless propulsion.
Nothing came of it because it was hard to analyze to see what was happening. But it was repeatable. At significant cost.
Am referring to own experience of non-Lorenz force explainable hundred newton "jumps" in superconducting magnets intended for an accelerator, in the environment of a vacuum microwave cavity. Won't detail it further. Limits.
Google search for 'anomalous behavior SSC magnets' turned up multiple articles, mostly dating to 1992-94.
Abstract from one of the more recent: (unable to link)
Several SSC S-cm-apenure, IS-m-Iong dipole magnet prototypes exhibit anomalous behavior of their magnetic field harmonics during current ramps at 4 Ns. The anomalies cease when the ramp is stopped and the current is held constant. The magnets also exhibit a dramatic degradation of their quench current as a function of ramp rate, as well as large AC-Iosses. After reviewing the AC-performance of the anomalous magnets, we develop a model of cable eddy currents, which can simulate the observed field behavior and the measured AClosses, and which is consistent with the quench start localization of the high ramp-rate quenches.
Several others in the same vein. Over my head. Relevant?
-
Talking of LENR here is a pretty recent New Scientist article about the current state of play.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130910-300-cold-fusion-sciences-most-controversial-technology-is-back/amp/?client=safari
We have a LENR thread (several). This is OT here. :)
I am not the one who brought the topic up on this thread initially.
-
......
The real problem is that very often in open discussions not everyone has the same or even similar backgrounds in the underlying theoretical model(s). It is true that words usually have exact meanings, but in the case of discussions including terms like the curvature of space-time, unless one has an understanding of the underlying geometry and math, the exact meaning is often misunderstood.
.....
While I certainly do not qualify as a person who understands the nature of curved space-time, I always had a sense that the illustrations, used to explain the space-time curvature, were utterly misleading. There is something non-consistent in those pictures, where they represent spacetime as a planar "thing", with the space (3dimentional) reduced to 1 dimension, time as another and the gravity as Z axis, causing a gravity well/pit.
Then you gave the earth and other stuff floating around, where suddenly those objects are considered in 3D again moving around on a 1 dimensional space... brrr...it misses consistency and it certainly doesn't relate to the reality around us.
besides, how to position the space time plane in relation to earth?now it is always depicted as on the XY plane, but turn the plane to XZ... what then? it just doesn't match up.
Such drawings are mental constructions, most probably constructed from a deeper mathematical understanding, but for any non-scientist who is not engaged deeply into the subject, these images are hugely deceptive and cultivate an understanding that is simply wrong...
The only thing such pictures do is establish that there is "some" relation between gravity and time,but also between time and space.
(http://www.uh.edu/~jclarage/astr3131/lectures/4/einstein/Einstein_stanford_Page7_files/spacetim.jpg)
internally, I'm wrestling with such images for over 20 years now, but because I'm not a professional scientist, i let it be. Not much i can do about it, anyway.
I just wonder why such a deceptive image became so popular.
On the positive side it does make the complex interaction between space, time and gravity more "visual", but at the same time the model lost all reference to reality, the world around us....
[speculation]
what if... gravity was some sort of "density field" spread throughout the universe and that increases it's density locally through the presents of matter. What if matter experiences a drag while moving through that gravity field. An object circling the earth would experience an asymmetrical drag (ref gravity swimmer), continuously changing its trajectory into a circular path around the earth...
See it more like a very large fishtank where the density of water (=gravity) is changed by the matter floating in it.
And the way we constructed the notion of time is by measuring movement. From turning watch pointers based on springs, to oscillating crystals and even vibrating atoms, they all use movement to measure "time".
If movement (or the possibility to move)of what we call "matter" is slowed down, time slows down also. So, if gravity causes a drag on matter, an increase of gravity will increase drag, making it harder to move, hence our measurement/perception of time slows down. It is like an increased gravity acts like a stasis field...
So interesting question is then (in EMdrive context).... what's the relation between gravity and electromagnetism... but that's way, way above my modest level of understanding, i suppose.. :)
[/speculation]
-
Interesting data plotting Cu and YBCO Rs curves vs freq at 77K and room temp, 300K.
Cu at room temp has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm and YBCO at 77k is as per my latest offer at 3uOhm at 3.85GHz.
Roger measured a Qu of 6.8x10^6 with his Experimental cryo EmDrive at 78uOhm at 3.83GHz at 77K.
My calculated specific force, based on that Qu was 41N/kWrf.
With YBCO, the Q scales linear as Rs values. So 78/3 = 26 x 6.8x10^6 = Qu of 1.8x10^8 for Roger's Experimental cryo thruster.
Force also scales linear with Qu so:
6.8x10^6 = 41N/kWrf
1.8x10^8 = 1,066N/kWrf or 109kg/kWrf for the Experimental cryo thruster, getting there.
Copper at room temp at 3.85GHz has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm, as attached or 2,667x higher Rs than the YBCO I was offered.
My Cu spherical end plate frustum has a Cu room temp Qu of 88k.
Coated with 3uOhm RS YBCO at 77K would be a Qu of 2.36x10^8 or a specific force of 1,066N/kWrf.
Drop the Freq from 3.85GHz to 2.45GHz and we have Rs of 3uOhm / ( 3.85/2.45)^2 = 1.2uOhm = Qu 5.9x10^8 = 2.780N/kWrf or 281kg/kWrf
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
-
Interesting data plotting Cu and YBCO Rs curves vs freq at 77K and room temp, 300K.
Cu at room temp has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm and YBCO at 77k is as per my latest offer at 3uOhm at 3.85GHz.
Roger measured a Qu of 6.8x10^6 with his Experimental cryo EmDrive at 78uOhm at 3.83GHz at 77K.
My calculated specific force, based on that Qu was 41N/kWrf.
With YBCO, the Q scales linear as Rs values. So 78/3 = 26 x 6.8x10^6 = Qu of 1.8x10^8 for Roger's Experimental cryo thruster.
Force also scales linear with Qu so:
6.8x10^6 = 41N/kWrf
1.8x10^8 = 1,066N/kWrf or 109kg/kWrf for the Experimental cryo thruster, getting there.
Copper at room temp at 3.85GHz has a Rs of around 8,000uOhm, as attached or 2,667x higher Rs than the YBCO I was offered.
My Cu spherical end plate frustum has a Cu room temp Qu of 88k.
Coated with 3uOhm RS YBCO at 77K would be a Qu of 2.36x10^8 or a specific force of 1,066N/kWrf.
Drop the Freq from 3.85GHz to 2.45GHz and we have Rs of 3uOhm / ( 3.85/2.45)^2 = 1.2uOhm = Qu 5.9x10^8 = 2.780N/kWrf or 281kg/kWrf
You equate measuring the Q to knowing the force. I won't feel comfortable till Mr. Shawyer or someone says they measured the Q and the force separately and they follow the proper relation. Why can't someone simply say what force they measured with the superconducting cavity? High Q's aren't controversial.
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
Falling through a gravitational field does indeed involve an 'exhaust'. Think of the system as a whole, the object which is falling and the field with its source, a planet. There is a mutual interaction through the field and momentum is conserved. It's easier to imagine if gravity were repulsive where the ship and the planet could each be considered the others exhaust. But the principle is the same for attraction.
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
Well, that's disappointing, but completely understandable.
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
I understand Phil's frustration and current situation. Readers should understand NSFs position, however, this information is posted elsewhere, which I will not disclose out of respect for Chris and others.
My commentary on the information released is simply this: Its tough to have waited so long, knowing what I knew about my own testing and knowing a far more competent team was in the process of testing. While I did not know the details, I knew the team was diligent, dedicated and most capable.
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? Would be great to get his input into all of the insights he and the team gained whilst in the run up to releasing this paper. Contents of the paper seems very significant indeed!
-
TheTraveller, very sorry to hear about your prostate cancer. :( Good luck, and God Speed; even though we've had rather vigorous disputes about the nature of this subject, I thank you for what you've done in all of these threads.
-
Sorry folks, apparently TheTraveller posted information he was not allowed to post in public and the author requested for it to be removed. We have to abide by non-disclosure removal requests.
I missed it! Was it an answer to me about forces? ;D
-
...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the contrary is false.
-
...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the opposite is completely false.
IIRC, it was Paul March that was going to enjoy his retirement, no?
-
...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the opposite is completely false.
IIRC, it was Paul March that was going to enjoy his retirement, no?
You are correct! I got them mixed up my bad haha
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior.
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior.
Would 1.2mn.KW be above the threshold to just write it off as experimental noise? Seems to me now that its above light sails and photon rockets it has to be taken much more seriously as they clearly went to great lengths to reduce the potential for experimental error and account for explainable sources of thrust.
Would we need to see a magnitude of increase in thrust once again to start really having the mainstream scientists look into this?
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air.
AND they built a self contained rotary experiment with onboard power supply? AND there's a video?
A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
Or do you mean that EW is planning a Cavendish rotary experiment for next year? You have confused me sir...
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air.
AND they built a self contained rotary experiment with onboard power supply? AND there's a video?
A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
Or do you mean that EW is planning a Cavendish rotary experiment for next year? You have confused me sir...
The data will be released in December. You likely won't be disappointed by anything but the wait.
-
:o ;D :D 8)
We live in interesting times!
-
I cannot wait until thread #10!
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
Falling through a gravitational field does indeed involve an 'exhaust'. Think of the system as a whole, the object which is falling and the field with its source, a planet. There is a mutual interaction through the field and momentum is conserved. It's easier to imagine if gravity were repulsive where the ship and the planet could each be considered the others exhaust. But the principle is the same for attraction.
I understand your explanation and CoM is safe. The Earth - Moon couple rotate around a common center of mass. Each is falling for the other`s time differential. It is the "mutual" part that bugs me. It is like saying there is a spring connecting them ... They each react to the time rate differential produced by the other, "where" they are (inverse square law) from the source. They do not interact source to source but rather source to influence (time rate differential).
Physics studies nature. But what we are trying to achieve here is by all definition "un-natural". Creating a local causal structure out of EM! We may have to accept along the way a few caveats for our laws of physics... i.e. New Physics...
Question: I know the all copper EMDrive acts pretty much like a Faraday cage. But, given all the power injected... is it possible that the frustum can't effectively shield it all. I mean, it requires a lots of free charges and with mobility into the megahertz.. Is there any capacitance like induced charges produced on the outside of the frustum? Has anything (Charges) been detected outside the frustum, apart from heat? Similar to the "evanescent" waves in optics?
If/If there were such stable charges formations on the outer surface of the frustum .. (?) maybe they could be visualized by applying a layer of liquid crystal on the surface and using a polarizer (analyzer) to view these formations ... Maybe view the actual mode your device is running? Just an idea...
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/meemoe_uk/cavity_force_zpsqsvd3vgl.png)
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
This is very thoroughly trodden ground in these threads. Shawyer says yes, while most everyone else says no.
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
...
Please look at conservation of momentum and free-body diagram arguments throughly, exhaustively and clearly covered by NSF member: meberbs, links here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=48207
Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. Need an external field so that it is not a closed system. Cannot be explained solely on the basis of Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations as a closed system.
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
This is very thoroughly trodden ground in these threads. Shawyer says yes, while most everyone else says no.
Actually it is even worse than that, since Shawyer claims:
1- there is no sidewall force,
2- the force exerted by radiation pressure onto big end is greater than onto small end; and this resulting backward force, vector direction pointing small to big (that he calls the "thrust" force) is measurable with "static" (i.e. non free to move frustum) measurement apparatus like torsion pendulums and digital scales,
3- but the force moving the EmDrive forward (that he calls the "reaction" force") accelerates the frustum small end leading, when it is on a "dynamic" (i.e. free to move) measurement apparatus, like low-friction linear or rotary test rigs (or driving an hypothetical flying or space vehicle).
From a scientific point of view, point (1) is simply wrong, and the relation between points (2) and (3) is incomprehensible word salad as it seems like "pushing on an object to the right moves it to the left" since the pressure is purely internal and the EmDrive doesn't expel anything out of its back as a conventional rocket would do.
EDIT: A recent (yesterday) video of Roger Shawyer explaining those different directions and the different behaviour of those "two forces":
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/videos/embed/21436
By the way it is the first time Shawyer brings up the idea that the EmDrive could also solve the energy crisis and global warming, as a new way to produce clean electrical energy. Coincidentally(?) the possibility that the EmDrive could act as an electric generator is a question that has been raised by Fan Boi and briefly discussed (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591291#msg1591291) here on NSF a few weeks ago.
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around?
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around?
I will jump in here...monomorphic deserves a crowd funding campaign. He has spent lots of his own capital investigating this device. Jamie, you would have my support if you set up GoFundMe, kick-starter or whatever. Even tho ew funds were limited, they are significantly more than Jamie has. Sorry pal, you're on the spot now. :)
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around?
I will jump in here...monomorphic deserves a crowd funding campaign. He has spent lots of his own capital investigating this device. Jamie, you would have my support if you set up GoFundMe, kick-starter or whatever. Even tho ew funds were limited, they are significantly more than Jamie has. Sorry pal, you're on the spot now. :)
I don't know. Not about crowd-funding for Jamie, but this PLA thing.
First, that so-called "PLA conductive graphene based filament" has an electrical resistivity of 8 mΩ·m at ambient temperature. In comparison, copper has an electrical resistivity of less than 17 nΩ·m. This makes that graphene-based PLA look over 470,000 times more insulating.
Then, isn't polylactic acid very soft and prone to deformation even under relatively low mechanical and thermal stresses?
Doesn't additive manufacturing process, i.e. 3D-printing, especially melted plastic based, produce stacked thin layers of different levels, giving a very rugged surface in the end?
Doesn't smoothing that rugged surface, by sanding or melting it with solvent vapor bath treatment, change the reflection angle of the surfaces and the distance in-between?
If I recall correctly, a "good" EmDrive requires an electrically conductive and very reflective, mirror polished, hard surface, with extremely low tolerance against mechanical and thermal deformations as well as regarding the angle and the distance between end plates.
I don't see how a 3D-printed frustum could meet those very high constraints. The solution advised by TheTraveller: turning thick copper on a lathe into a seamless frustum and perfectly spherical end plates then silver flashing the inside, is IMHO the only valid way to go for high Q. If you try the 3D printer way I hope you can prove me wrong though.
-
Am ready for "the big build" now. Don't know if it's too big for the printer though. Happy to throw $ into a fund for printer. Monomorphic, what are the limits of it (the printer)?
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?
...
Irrespective of the credibility of these rumors comparing an anomalous force to the force of a photon rocket does not convince me of anything. Measurement errors never disappear. The best that can be done is to compare a measurement to the expected measurement error. If the experimenter doesn't know what the measurement error is then all their data is due to measurement error.
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?
...
Irrespective of the credibility of these rumors comparing an anomalous force to the force of a photon rocket does not convince me of anything. Measurement errors never disappear. The best that can be done is to compare a measurement to the expected measurement error. If the experimenter doesn't know what the measurement error is then all their data is due to measurement error.
I can definitely understand this critique. 96 Micronewtons is basically nothing.
-
I can definitely understand this critique. 96 Micronewtons is basically nothing.
Agree. But a nothing that could measurably change a satellite's trajectory in space in a potentially useful way.
This is why this potential phenomenon has such an eppur si muove feeling to it, and why it needs to be tested in space.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article. The thrust waveform (fig c) is from the first vacuum tests two years ago. The photo below is from those tests. If you compare the two graphs you will see they are the same data. Also the photos are from the first vacuum tests at Eagle Labs. We will have to wait for the publication of the peer reviewed paper.
-
So with the news of very good numbers in EW's upcoming paper, my mind goes more towards the application side of things. Although I realize the early applications if this works out in space will likely be orbital controls, I was curious about how well and how fast this would apply to human rated ships flying in the late 2020's and 2030's. SpaceX's Elon Musk has been on the record being very skeptical of the EM/Q-Thrust drive, and I think rightfully so. However, with greater scientific proof, I am very curious if there could be an early variant of the ITS system that is more efficient and takes advantage of the technology. Obviously, with the human carrying interplanetary spaceship, you would still require raptors, because no one is going to be doing EM drive propulsive landings anytime soon. However, my questions is, could you make a configuration with an orbital "Tow ship". This would basically just be a ship with a cluster of EM Drives on the back, and one or more nuclear reactors. These would wait in orbit, attach to a ship when its launched, tow it to mars (or other destinations), release the ship, and then stay in orbit until the return flight. It seems like this could lower the refuel count and greatly reduce travel time / radiation exposure assuming a significant N/kW drive. Obviously this is all hugely speculative, but I have my kicks somehow, right?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM25-lz1Yms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM25-lz1Yms)
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?
...
Irrespective of the credibility of these rumors comparing an anomalous force to the force of a photon rocket does not convince me of anything. Measurement errors never disappear. The best that can be done is to compare a measurement to the expected measurement error. If the experimenter doesn't know what the measurement error is then all their data is due to measurement error.
You are right. But the EW paper list and evaluate mesurement errors. The max possible errors are substracted to the results.
I hope I did not already told too much. :o
Also, The Traveller, I am sorry for your Cancer. My prayers are for you.
-
So with the news of very good numbers in EW's upcoming paper, my mind goes more towards the application side of things. Although I realize the early applications if this works out in space will likely be orbital controls, I was curious about how well and how fast this would apply to human rated ships flying in the late 2020's and 2030's. SpaceX's Elon Musk has been on the record being very skeptical of the EM/Q-Thrust drive, and I think rightfully so. However, with greater scientific proof, I am very curious if there could be an early variant of the ITS system that is more efficient and takes advantage of the technology. Obviously, with the human carrying interplanetary spaceship, you would still require raptors, because no one is going to be doing EM drive propulsive landings anytime soon. However, my questions is, could you make a configuration with an orbital "Tow ship". This would basically just be a ship with a cluster of EM Drives on the back, and one or more nuclear reactors. These would wait in orbit, attach to a ship when its launched, tow it to mars (or other destinations), release the ship, and then stay in orbit until the return flight. It seems like this could lower the refuel count and greatly reduce travel time / radiation exposure assuming a significant N/kW drive. Obviously this is all hugely speculative, but I have my kicks somehow, right?
With the performance of the EW Emdrive, we can do a few calculus.
I shall suppose a huge solar array of 1 MW (instead of 200KW)
The thrust is 1.2mN/Kw. So, 1.2N/Mw
I shall suppose a mass of 100T.
I makes a Delta V per day of 1.2*86000/100000=1.032
So, it makes 1.032m/s of Delta V each day. It is not yet enough to get in a reasonable time to mars. A few km/s of total Delta V are needed. It would needs around 2 orders of magnitude higher thrust.
The actual 1.2mN/Kw would be OK only for orbital position keeping or modifying. With the possibility of saving satellites that were sent in the wrong orbits, or of directly launching more satellites in the same launch, some one in the wrong orbit, and sending them to the right orbit after a few mothes or years of continual acceleration. It could also be used to make small ships able to desorbit a big satellite in some years. So, there are already several possible utilities, but not yet for Mars mission. Or only as a secondary thruster for trajectory corrections.
-
>Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open. Where is the argument against this? I didn't find it in all that stuff you linked to
Also, are you implying an absolutely closed system ( non relativistic and relativistic ) can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket? How?
Asymmetries are known to come from relativistic conditions, e.g. the twin effect. Is there a simple reason why time asymmetry is allowed, but force asymmetry isn't?
-
>Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open. Where is the argument against this? I didn't find it in all that stuff you linked to
Also, are you implying an absolutely closed system ( non relativistic and relativistic ) can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket? How?
Asymmetries are known to come from relativistic conditions, e.g. the twin effect. Is there a simple reason why time asymmetry is allowed, but force asymmetry isn't?
Of course, a closed system can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket. Photons do have momentum, and CoM make than, with expelling a photon, you get momentum in the opposite direction.
In fact, the system constituted by the photon rocket and it's contained energy, if it is isolated, does not gain momentum, but since you do not count any more the photons expelled as being a part of your ship, the ship itself gain momentum. It is the sampe principle that this of any chemical rocket. If the system rocket+propellant is a closed system, it will never get momentum. But, as you don't count any more the propellant that you throw away (you don't need the propellant going on destination) the rocket gain momentum in the other side. If you have a 100kg ship and that you send, in forms of collimated photons, the massic energy of 1kg of matter, your ship get around a speed of C/100 (there is a relativistic correction needed to get the exact speed, but it is close)
The photons does not have much momentum. That is why a photon rocket is not much efficient. But, in fact, if you count the massic energy of the propellant, the photon rocket is the most efficient propulsion for a closed system.
If instead of sending 1 kg of propellant to 4000m/s with a classical rocket motor, you could get the massic energy of this 1kg, and send it as photons, you get far much Delta V.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open.
That is this assert that has no proof. In Special Relativity (used by Shawyer) or in GR, there is no such possibility. Photons bouncing in a closed cavity, far enough from anything else so gravity becomes negligible, doesn't become an open system. There are theories where it becomes an open system, interacting with the rest of the universe, for example MiHsC. But not in Special Relativity or General Relativity. That is why we are creating mad theories here :o If GR was enough to explain a working Emdrive, we would stay on GR.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
-
First, that so-called "PLA conductive graphene based filament" has an electrical resistivity of 8 mΩ·m at ambient temperature. In comparison, copper has an electrical resistivity of less than 17 nΩ·m. This makes that graphene-based PLA look over 470,000 times more insulating.
The reason I would use graphene based PLA is because it can be electroplated without the need to apply a conductive coat.
Then, isn't polylactic acid very soft and prone to deformation even under relatively low mechanical and thermal stresses?
Perhaps not as prone to deformation if it has a 0.5mm layer of copper or silver electroplated over it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-heV79vRWY
Doesn't additive manufacturing process, i.e. 3D-printing, especially melted plastic based, produce stacked thin layers of different levels, giving a very rugged surface in the end?
Doesn't smoothing that rugged surface, by sanding or melting it with solvent vapor bath treatment, change the reflection angle of the surfaces and the distance in-between?
3d-printing would produce stacked thin layers that will be rugged (depending on the quality of the printer). If you look closely at the hackaday baby emdrive cavity, you will see these layers clearly on the interior surface.
As for sanding changing the reflection angle of the cavity, I think some of that can be compensated for in the 3d model. It may also work out that 0.5mm of sanding is replaced by 0.5mm of electroplate.
I would need to experiment, but a highly polished finish is possible: http://www.repliforminc.com/finishes.html
Even if it doesn't work out the way I have described above, a great way to machine a cavity from solid metal would be the lost wax method. And since wax filament is available for 3d printers I could easily pivot that direction.
-
If I translate my best test result of 18.4 mN @ ~750W ERP (after losses/reflection), I would have ~13.8 mN/kW.
Coincidence is (IIRC) EW is at 1/10 my power and 1/10 my mN/kW.
I am not sure this means anything, as both were at different freqs using different construction materials etc., just a number that jumped out at me.
Regardless, I am not 100% convinced the leaked paper will be the one published. It was my guess that there were delays due to re-write requests. How can we be sure this was the Final Draft? Best we wait for December before diving too deeply into things.
-
Well, the click-bait sites are already starting to pick up the paper this morning. I'm waiting for the "NASA Accidentally Invents Warp Drive" headlines to start rolling again.
::)
Just one more reason to be careful what we say here folks, it's not just the active participants following this thread.
Still, this may be a "Great Filter" (http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)moment that humanity is successfully passing through...
I feared this would happen as soon as I saw Chris's message about having to remove certain postings. Luckily I missed the actual posts as I would rather wait for the official release. It's also been purged from the Reddit on EM drive.
-
Yes there are forces on the side walls.
Yes the acceleration direction is opposite to that of the Thrust force generated on a scale.
Roger reported on this and measured it in his Demonstrator Static tests as attached which had a measured vector Small to Big. He also commented in his various papers that when the Demonstrator EmDrive was placed on the rotary test rig, it accelerated Big to Small.
TheTraveller, can you please tell if you consider Eagleworks' torsion pendulum as a "static" (like a frustum fixed on a spring balance on a digital scale) or "dynamic" (like a frustum free to accelerate on a rotary test rig) experimental test setup (I'm employing Shawyer's terminology)?
-
Yes there are forces on the side walls.
Yes the acceleration direction is opposite to that of the Thrust force generated on a scale.
Roger reported on this and measured it in his Demonstrator Static tests as attached which had a measured vector Small to Big. He also commented in his various papers that when the Demonstrator EmDrive was placed on the rotary test rig, it accelerated Big to Small.
TheTraveller, can you please tell if you consider Eagleworks' torsion pendulum as a "static" (like a frustum fixed on a spring balance on a digital scale) or "dynamic" (like a frustum free to accelerate on a rotary test rig) experimental test setup (I'm employing Shawyer's terminology)?
I don't think you'll get a reply from them for obvious reasons.
-
...
That is this assert that has no proof. In Special Relativity (used by Shawyer) or in GR, there is no such possibility. Photons bouncing in a closed cavity, far enough from anything else so gravity becomes negligible, doesn't become an open system. There are theories where it becomes an open system, interacting with the rest of the universe, for example MiHsC. But not in Special Relativity or General Relativity. That is why we are creating mad theories here :o If GR was enough to explain a working Emdrive, we would stay on GR.
I did stay with GR. I just interpret it differently than anyone else. Everybody want's to know what the EmDrive is pushing against, "interacting with the rest of the universe", etc... In my model, the "empty" metal frustum cavity is pushing against the EM energy stored inside it. The weight of the stored EM energy is the Counter Mass against the weight of the metal frustum. The "weights" are wrt the internal acceleration vector, generated by the asymmetrical power dissipation. (The gradient.)
Now, if the walls were perfect conductors, the Q were infinite and the energy inside the frustum had no way out, then this could never work. But... if the MW source is turned off, the energy does NOT stay bottled up in there forever. It dissipates. It gets out through dissipation as heat, the ultimate "red shift" and other dissipative processes. It is a very slow process, but a slow exhaust velocity is what we want, in order to get thrust greater than a photon rocket.
The size of the counter mass is directly proportional to P*Q, and inversely proportional to frequency, f for a given input power. In other words, P*Q/f = Energy and we want more energy stored. The EmDrive only needs a small gradient in the dissipation factor, but it needs to store an enormous counter mass as EM energy to get higher thrust.
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
This is very thoroughly trodden ground in these threads. Shawyer says yes, while most everyone else says no.
Actually it is even worse than that, since Shawyer claims:
1- there is no sidewall force,
2- the force exerted by radiation pressure onto big end is greater than onto small end; and this resulting backward force, vector direction pointing small to big (that he calls the "thrust" force) is measurable with "static" (i.e. non free to move frustum) measurement apparatus like torsion pendulums and digital scales,
3- but the force moving the EmDrive forward (that he calls the "reaction" force") accelerates the frustum small end leading, when it is on a "dynamic" (i.e. free to move) measurement apparatus, like low-friction linear or rotary test rigs (or driving an hypothetical flying or space vehicle).
From a scientific point of view, point (1) is simply wrong, and the relation between points (2) and (3) is incomprehensible word salad as it seems like "pushing on an object to the right moves it to the left" since the pressure is purely internal and the EmDrive doesn't expel anything out of its back as a conventional rocket would do.
EDIT: A recent (yesterday) video of Roger Shawyer explaining those different directions and the different behaviour of those "two forces":
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/videos/embed/21436
By the way it is the first time Shawyer brings up the idea that the EmDrive could also solve the energy crisis and global warming, as a new way to produce clean electrical energy. Coincidentally(?) the possibility that the EmDrive could act as an electric generator is a question that has been raised by Fan Boi and briefly discussed (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591291#msg1591291) here on NSF a few weeks ago.
When he speaks of solving the energy crisis I believe he is not discussing the EmDrive as a new source of energy, he is discussing using the EmDrive to economically build large solar power satellites in GEO and harvesting the sun.
-
>Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open. Where is the argument against this? I didn't find it in all that stuff you linked to
...
Look deeper into all the messages from memerbs I linked to (also look into the posts by wicoe, Gilbertdrive and Frobnicat), and consider conservation principles.
...Also, are you implying an absolutely closed system ( non relativistic and relativistic ) can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket? How?..
No, on the contrary, I never implied that. In this forum, when quoting, please always link to the original member's post. Quote as follows, using the quote button on the upper right (notice that this allows a reader to directly link to the quoted post by clicking on the quote, giving the time of the post]
...Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. Need an external field so that it is not a closed system. Cannot be explained solely on the basis of Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations as a closed system.
the bolded statements are important qualifier statements that you did not include in your fragmented quote.
On the contrary, I implied that an electromagnetic resonant cavity, even if open, would have an upper limit self-acceleration at most equal to a perfectly collimated photon rocket, under Special Relativity and without coupling external fields. Furthermore, a closed cavity would have a self-acceleration much smaller than a perfectly collimated photon rocket (due to asymmetric thermal radiation in Space), under the same constraints.
In order to have a force/inputPower greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket one must exhaust (or couple to) massive particles rather than photons.
==> There is a paper by a Professor from Finland ( http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-finnish-physicist-says-controversial-space-propulsion-device-does-have-exhaust-1565673
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
) that claims that a perfectly closed electromagnetic cavity can still materialize photons outside it, and I also wanted to make it clear that his theory (even if true, which I question) still would not explain the EM Drive
...Asymmetries are known to come from relativistic conditions, e.g. the twin effect. Is there a simple reason why time asymmetry is allowed, but force asymmetry isn't?
Yes, the simple reason is that a force asymmetry is constrained by two conservation principles under Special Relativity:
Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of Energy
the twin paradox under Special Relativity does not violate conservation of energy or conservation of momentum
Things are allowed unless they violate conservation principles, they violate the equations of motion, they violate boundary conditions, they violate initial conditions, etc. etc.
-
>Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open. Where is the argument against this? I didn't find it in all that stuff you linked to
Also, are you implying an absolutely closed system ( non relativistic and relativistic ) can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket? How?
If the system is open, it has to interact with some external (i.e. existing outside the frustum) fields or objects. One cannot just state it's open without specifying what it's interacting with.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I only skimmed the link on their site, and won't discuss specifics until the official release, because we do not know that their link will match the official release. Since it is being referenced in several places as very positive results, I want to mention that it does not look to me like the conclusive proof some were hoping for.
Again, I won't be specific, because my concerns could be addressed (one way or another) by the official version.
-
>Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Shawyer asserts that due to relativistic effects, the system becomes open. Where is the argument against this? I didn't find it in all that stuff you linked to
Also, are you implying an absolutely closed system ( non relativistic and relativistic ) can propel itself with the force of a photon rocket? How?
If the system is open, it has to interact with some external (i.e. existing outside the frustum) fields or objects. One cannot just state it's open without specifying what it's interacting with.
Shawyer needs to now state what are the external fields that make the system "open" instead of closed, and he needs to recognize that there is internal pressure on the conical side walls of a truncated conical cavity even when the cavity has spherical ends and the waves are spherical waves, and he needs to reconsider his free-body force diagrams, among several things.
-
With the performance of the EW Emdrive, we can do a few calculus.
I shall suppose a huge solar array of 1 MW (instead of 200KW)
The thrust is 1.2mN/Kw. So, 1.2N/Mw
I shall suppose a mass of 100T.
I makes a Delta V per day of 1.2*86000/100000=1.032
So, it makes 1.032m/s of Delta V each day. It is not yet enough to get in a reasonable time to mars. A few km/s of total Delta V are needed. It would needs around 2 orders of magnitude higher thrust.
The actual 1.2mN/Kw would be OK only for orbital position keeping or modifying. With the possibility of saving satellites that were sent in the wrong orbits, or of directly launching more satellites in the same launch, some one in the wrong orbit, and sending them to the right orbit after a few mothes or years of continual acceleration. It could also be used to make small ships able to desorbit a big satellite in some years. So, there are already several possible utilities, but not yet for Mars mission. Or only as a secondary thruster for trajectory corrections.
Why are you using such a low mN/kW? 1.2mN is below most experimental results and far below the best reported results. If it were being used in a production propulsion application, especially at this scale, shouldn't we assume near the top specs of the relatively low budget current productions? Based on current top end experiments, wouldn't we be at a couple of order of magnitude higher, closer to the 1N/kW range?
-
With the performance of the EW Emdrive, we can do a few calculus.
I shall suppose a huge solar array of 1 MW (instead of 200KW)
The thrust is 1.2mN/Kw. So, 1.2N/Mw
I shall suppose a mass of 100T.
I makes a Delta V per day of 1.2*86000/100000=1.032
So, it makes 1.032m/s of Delta V each day. It is not yet enough to get in a reasonable time to mars. A few km/s of total Delta V are needed. It would needs around 2 orders of magnitude higher thrust.
The actual 1.2mN/Kw would be OK only for orbital position keeping or modifying. With the possibility of saving satellites that were sent in the wrong orbits, or of directly launching more satellites in the same launch, some one in the wrong orbit, and sending them to the right orbit after a few mothes or years of continual acceleration. It could also be used to make small ships able to desorbit a big satellite in some years. So, there are already several possible utilities, but not yet for Mars mission. Or only as a secondary thruster for trajectory corrections.
Why are you using such a low mN/kW? 1.2mN is below most experimental results and far below the best reported results. If it were being used in a production propulsion application, especially at this scale, shouldn't we assume near the top specs of the relatively low budget current productions? Based on current top end experiments, wouldn't we be at a couple of order of magnitude higher, closer to the 1N/kW range?
He's using the most detailed vacuum verified results available. Unfortunately, the best presently available results are an order of magnitude below the power efficiency of a Hall Effect Thruster.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I only skimmed the link on their site, and won't discuss specifics until the official release, because we do not know that their link will match the official release. Since it is being referenced in several places as very positive results, I want to mention that it does not look to me like the conclusive proof some were hoping for.
Again, I won't be specific, because my concerns could be addressed (one way or another) by the official version.
Thanks for pointing out the link to the paper; I missed that when I read the article. I downloaded the paper and skimmed through it. A lot can be learned from the title:
Q-Thruster In-Vacuum Fall 2015 Test Report.pdf
It looks like this paper describes the vacuum tests they did in Nov. 2014. The photos and graphs are the same. All of the "thrust" waveforms show a first order step response (thermal). There may be more error analysis done in this paper. However if the driving force only has first order characteristics it is a thermal effect. Any error analysis that claims otherwise is wrong. I don't believe this is their peer reviewed paper. In 2015 when these results were announced they acknowledged it was inconclusive and the goal was to improve the apparatus/testing so that more definitive results could be seen.
Below is one of the graphs from this paper. We discussed it early 2015 in this forum. I added the blue curve and comments to show how both edges of the "thrust" pulse are very similar to a first order step response. There is no overshoot or ringing as would be seen with a second order response.
-
I downloaded the paper and skimmed through it. A lot can be learned from the title:
Q-Thruster In-Vacuum Fall 2015 Test Report.pdf
It looks like this paper describes the vacuum tests they did in Nov. 2014. The photos and graphs are the same. All of the "thrust" waveforms show a first order step response (thermal). There may be more error analysis done in this paper. However if the driving force only has first order characteristics it is a thermal effect. Any error analysis that claims otherwise is wrong. I don't believe this is their peer reviewed paper. In 2015 when these results were announced they acknowledged it was inconclusive and the goal was to improve the apparatus/testing so that more definitive results could be seen.
Below is one of the graphs from this paper. We discussed it early 2015 in this forum. I added the blue curve and comments to show how both edges of the "thrust" pulse are very similar to a first order step response. There is no overshoot or ringing as would be seen with a second order response.
At what point are we allowed to discuss here the EW paper that leaked ? Can a moderator tell us ?
Of course I should be very happy if we are allowed, but it is not very clear yet. Any precision should be welcome !
-
At the time of the New Scientist article controversy, Shawyer was not stating (to my recollection) that the system was "open".
Shawyer in his original theory paper (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf) (the 2006 version published by New Scientist, please note the linked paper had corrected versions afterwards and is outdated) already talked about the EmDrive being an "open system":
The second effect is that as the beam velocities are not directly dependent on any velocity of the waveguide, the beam and waveguide form an open system. Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.
He also added on his website (http://emdrive.com/principle.html):
The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.
A similar approach is necessary to explain the principle of the laser gyroscope, where open system attitude information is obtained from an apparently closed system device.
But those explanations do not really follow the way you would expect to comply with general relativity.
-
At the time of the New Scientist article controversy, Shawyer was not stating (to my recollection) that the system was "open".
Shawyer in his original theory paper (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf) (the 2006 version published by New Scientist, please note the linked paper had corrected versions afterwards and is outdated) already talked about the EmDrive being an "open system":
The second effect is that as the beam velocities are not directly dependent on any velocity of the waveguide, the beam and waveguide form an open system. Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.
He also added on his website (http://emdrive.com/principle.html):
The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.
A similar approach is necessary to explain the principle of the laser gyroscope, where open system attitude information is obtained from an apparently closed system device.
But those explanations do not really follow the way you would expect to comply with general relativity.
Thank you for the correction. So I understand now that Shawyer has been claiming that the EM Drive is an open system that can be explained solely due to Special Relativity and Newton's laws.
I still do not at all understand what makes it an open system. Heat Radiation will make it an open system but will not explain a force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Co-propagation out of the cavity of some out-of-phase photons as proposed in http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807 will not explain a force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Thermal convection of heat will make it an open system with force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, is Shawyer claiming that the EM Drive force/InputPower is purely due to asymmetric thermal convection? Sort of like a very inefficient heater? Thermal convection cannot be used for space flight applications ...or even for efficient applications in our atmosphere
If anybody else can think of what makes it an open system according to Shawyer, please let us know...
PS: I will correct my original post accordingly
-
At the time of the New Scientist article controversy, Shawyer was not stating (to my recollection) that the system was "open".
Shawyer in his original theory paper (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf) (the 2006 version published by New Scientist, please note the linked paper had corrected versions afterwards and is outdated) already talked about the EmDrive being an "open system":
The second effect is that as the beam velocities are not directly dependent on any velocity of the waveguide, the beam and waveguide form an open system. Thus the reactions at the end plates are not constrained within a closed system of waveguide and beam but are reactions between waveguide and beam, each operating within its own reference frame, in an open system.
He also added on his website (http://emdrive.com/principle.html):
The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.
A similar approach is necessary to explain the principle of the laser gyroscope, where open system attitude information is obtained from an apparently closed system device.
But those explanations do not really follow the way you would expect to comply with general relativity.
Thank you for the correction. So I understand now that Shawyer has been claiming that the EM Drive is an open system that can be explained solely due to Special Relativity and Newton's laws.
I still do not at all understand what makes it an open system. Heat Radiation will make it an open system but will not explain a force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Thermal convection of heat will make it an open system with force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, is Shawyer claiming that the EM Drive force/InputPower is purely due to asymmetric thermal convection? Sort of like a very inefficient heater? Thermal convection cannot be used for space flight applications ...or even for efficient applications in our atmosphere
If anybody else can think of what makes it an open system according to Shawyer, please let us know...
PS: I will correct my original post accordingly
IMO, a "closed system" should be specified as an EmDrive where the Q is infinite and when the MW source is removed, the stored energy remains stored indefinitely. THEN it is a closed system. As long as the stored energy eventually decays to zero, the system is not closed. So those who claim it is a closed system, need to define why it is closed when it is apparent that the Q is not infinite and the stored energy does not stay indefinitely.
-
...
IMO, a "closed system" should be specified as an EmDrive where the Q is infinite and when the MW source is removed, the stored energy remains stored indefinitely. THEN it is a closed system. As long as the stored energy eventually decays to zero, the system is not closed. So those who claim it is a closed system, need to define why it is closed when it is apparent that the Q is not infinite and the stored energy does not stay indefinitely.
As discussed in my last post, the system is not closed, when considering heat dissipation. The problem is not whether it is an open system under negligibly small forces.
The problem is what makes it an open system with a force/InputPower that is orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. The onus of proving that is not on the shoulders of those pointing this out. The responsibility for proving this, is rather on the shoulders of those claiming that this is possible.
So far only a few have attempted to met this challenge, however much their theories can, and have been criticized:
* McCulloch with Unruh waves
* Todd with a modification of Puthoff's formulation for a polarizable QV, now including dissipation
* White with his formulation for a mutable QV
* Notsosureofit postulating gravitation, entropy, and the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.
* Alexander Trunev and a gravitation theory plus Yang Mills
* Fernando Minotti and a scalar tensor theory of gravity
I am not including Arto Annila because he did not specify how is the force/InputPower from a few few photons escaping the cavity orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
I am not including Shawyer because he did not address what makes the system open with a force/InputPower orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and explainable solely on the basis of Special Relativity and Newton's laws.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I only skimmed the link on their site, and won't discuss specifics until the official release, because we do not know that their link will match the official release. Since it is being referenced in several places as very positive results, I want to mention that it does not look to me like the conclusive proof some were hoping for.
Again, I won't be specific, because my concerns could be addressed (one way or another) by the official version.
There appears to be a high degree of scepticism about what was posted before it was also removed elsewhere, so I will be interested to see how much of this scepticism will be answered by the final paper rather than what was leaked.
-
With the performance of the EW Emdrive, we can do a few calculus.
I shall suppose a huge solar array of 1 MW (instead of 200KW)
The thrust is 1.2mN/Kw. So, 1.2N/Mw
I shall suppose a mass of 100T.
I makes a Delta V per day of 1.2*86000/100000=1.032
So, it makes 1.032m/s of Delta V each day. It is not yet enough to get in a reasonable time to mars. A few km/s of total Delta V are needed. It would needs around 2 orders of magnitude higher thrust.
The actual 1.2mN/Kw would be OK only for orbital position keeping or modifying. With the possibility of saving satellites that were sent in the wrong orbits, or of directly launching more satellites in the same launch, some one in the wrong orbit, and sending them to the right orbit after a few mothes or years of continual acceleration. It could also be used to make small ships able to desorbit a big satellite in some years. So, there are already several possible utilities, but not yet for Mars mission. Or only as a secondary thruster for trajectory corrections.
Why are you using such a low mN/kW? 1.2mN is below most experimental results and far below the best reported results. If it were being used in a production propulsion application, especially at this scale, shouldn't we assume near the top specs of the relatively low budget current productions? Based on current top end experiments, wouldn't we be at a couple of order of magnitude higher, closer to the 1N/kW range?
According to his public statements I heard, Shawyer stated that the NASA experiments are ten years behind the times. He's glad they are testing it but a bit befuddled that they don't seem interested in doing experiments that are current.
-
With the performance of the EW Emdrive, we can do a few calculus.
I shall suppose a huge solar array of 1 MW (instead of 200KW)
The thrust is 1.2mN/Kw. So, 1.2N/Mw
I shall suppose a mass of 100T.
I makes a Delta V per day of 1.2*86000/100000=1.032
So, it makes 1.032m/s of Delta V each day. It is not yet enough to get in a reasonable time to mars. A few km/s of total Delta V are needed. It would needs around 2 orders of magnitude higher thrust.
The actual 1.2mN/Kw would be OK only for orbital position keeping or modifying. With the possibility of saving satellites that were sent in the wrong orbits, or of directly launching more satellites in the same launch, some one in the wrong orbit, and sending them to the right orbit after a few mothes or years of continual acceleration. It could also be used to make small ships able to desorbit a big satellite in some years. So, there are already several possible utilities, but not yet for Mars mission. Or only as a secondary thruster for trajectory corrections.
Why are you using such a low mN/kW? 1.2mN is below most experimental results and far below the best reported results. If it were being used in a production propulsion application, especially at this scale, shouldn't we assume near the top specs of the relatively low budget current productions? Based on current top end experiments, wouldn't we be at a couple of order of magnitude higher, closer to the 1N/kW range?
According to his public statements I heard, Shawyer stated that the NASA experiments are ten years behind the times. He's glad they are testing it but a bit befuddled that they don't seem interested in doing experiments that are current.
As I am bedfulled that Shawyer never managed any on orbit testing after 10 years of development.
My calculus was following a message that started by
So with the news of very good numbers in EW's upcoming paper, my mind goes more towards the application side of things.
That is why I made my calculus with EW results. It was about the good numbers of EW'S paper.
With Shawyer claims about flying cars, there is even no more need for any rocket engine. SSTO should be easy, and go on mars in 2 days.
Flying car needs at least an acceleration of 10m/s to make vertical lift off. Applying the formula 1/2*a*t² and dividing it by 10^9 to get millions of Km
1/2*10*(86000)^2/10^9=36,98 millions of km after one day
So, when the earth and mars are close, one day accelerating and one day decellerating should be enough.
No need for raptor with Shawyer claims.
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude greater. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I as aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Eagleworks used TM212 instead of TE012 despite TE012 showed higher Q and greater specific force, because it was difficult for them to trigger that TE mode and maintain proper resonance while the frustum was undergoing thermal expansion. Also in the Brady frustum, TE012 is too close to other RF modes. So they defaulted to TM212 which is more comfortable to work with.
I'd like to see tests conducted with bigger frustums too. But what kind of RF generator accessible to a DIYer would you recommend to feed such larger resonant cavity with higher power and lower frequency than a 2 kW @ 2.45 GHz magnetron?
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The current tests may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to higher thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The actual test may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to high thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
What I have seen in simulations with the NASA frustum and others is that the loop antenna mounted on the side wall is not the ideal location to excite TE01x. It can be done, but requires a number of conditions to be just right - and even then can be fleeting. It is far easier to excite TE01x using either a loop antenna or circularizing antenna positioned along the central axis (as seen in Shawyer's recent patent).
As for frustum size, I will probably migrate towards c-band as fabricating cavities that size is much more economical. There is a small hit in Q for going smaller, but that can be made up for elsewhere.
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The actual test may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to high thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
What I have seen in simulations with the NASA frustum and others is that the loop antenna mounted on the side wall is not the ideal location to excite TE01x. It can be done, but requires a number of conditions to be just right - and even then can be fleeting. It is far easier to excite TE01x using either a loop antenna or circularizing antenna positioned along the central axis (as seen in Shawyer's recent patent).
As for frustum size, I will probably migrate towards c-band as fabricating cavities that size is much more economical. There is a small hit in Q for going smaller, but that can be made up for elsewhere.
My answer was directed to FL regarding his questions.
I have years of experience in exciting this kind of mode in real world sensor applications, therefore I am can confirm your statement completely. :)
-
To further illustrate the importance of antenna location when exciting TE01x modes, here are some sims I ran for the hackaday baby emdrive recently tested by Paul Kocyla and Prof. Tajmar in vacuum. Paul K. was kind enough to provide exact cavity dimensions and antenna location shape and size. A sweep of the frequencies tested showed that none of the familiar modes would have been excited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIhE3PRKM6o
After switching out the monopole antenna for a loop antenna positioned along the central axis, even with the course sweep, TE013 was seen at 23.75Ghz. This is because that mode persists over a larger frequency range with this antenna configuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFzUrpNx0Jk
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The actual test may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to high thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
What I have seen in simulations with the NASA frustum and others is that the loop antenna mounted on the side wall is not the ideal location to excite TE01x. It can be done, but requires a number of conditions to be just right - and even then can be fleeting. It is far easier to excite TE01x using either a loop antenna or circularizing antenna positioned along the central axis (as seen in Shawyer's recent patent).
As for frustum size, I will probably migrate towards c-band as fabricating cavities that size is much more economical. There is a small hit in Q for going smaller, but that can be made up for elsewhere.
There is a double hit in the stored energy. The energy stored in the cavity will be proportional to;
E ~ P*Q/f
And the reaction counter mass that the frustum is pushing against is ~ E/c2. Therefore, you want to maximize energy storage. Higher frequency will have lower Q and much lower energy storage for the same power input.
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The actual test may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to high thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
What I have seen in simulations with the NASA frustum and others is that the loop antenna mounted on the side wall is not the ideal location to excite TE01x. It can be done, but requires a number of conditions to be just right - and even then can be fleeting. It is far easier to excite TE01x using either a loop antenna or circularizing antenna positioned along the central axis (as seen in Shawyer's recent patent).
As for frustum size, I will probably migrate towards c-band as fabricating cavities that size is much more economical. There is a small hit in Q for going smaller, but that can be made up for elsewhere.
There is a double hit in the stored energy. The energy stored in the cavity will be proportional to;
E ~ P*Q/f
And the reaction counter mass that the frustum is pushing against is ~ E/c2. Therefore, you want to maximize energy storage. Higher frequency will have lower Q and much lower energy storage for the same power input.
This is true when you scale the frustum with frequency. If you keep the dimensions constant and allow a higher mode to be present,the Q also increases with frequency. ;)
I have tested this for the "p" value only but I am pretty sure it's true for the other intrgers of TXmnp also.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1536095#msg1536095
-
Not even sure why EWL used TM212 instead of TE012 or TE013, not to mention RCs of X2, 3 or 4 larger in size would have "Q"s orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps it's safe to assert that force/Watt should/would also increase..to what extent I do not know, but Sonny did address extrapolations in his Ames talk (as I recall). Additionally, a larger cavity "supposedly" would "handle" more power input. This is why I aforementioned was ready to go with a bigger build: say x2 or 2.5 times larger. Anyone interested? I'd ask Shell Jamie or Dave to handle the RF and testing, while I'd be responsible for fabrication. FL
Let's consider the first report. There they stated, there are problems to excite TE012 using the existing/ already builded frustum. Therefore TM212 was used. It's quite logic to get straight forward with the existing one because:
1. There is a lot of experience with the existing frustum and they can compare the new results with the older.
2. Calculate, build and explore another frustum with TE012 optimized geometry would cost a lot of time and money.
3. The actual test may used to check(confirm or reject) if it works at all, not to optimize it to high thrust levels, that may done during future work.
4. A much larger frustum doesn't make it more easy to test the device.
What I have seen in simulations with the NASA frustum and others is that the loop antenna mounted on the side wall is not the ideal location to excite TE01x. It can be done, but requires a number of conditions to be just right - and even then can be fleeting. It is far easier to excite TE01x using either a loop antenna or circularizing antenna positioned along the central axis (as seen in Shawyer's recent patent).
As for frustum size, I will probably migrate towards c-band as fabricating cavities that size is much more economical. There is a small hit in Q for going smaller, but that can be made up for elsewhere.
There is a double hit in the stored energy. The energy stored in the cavity will be proportional to;
E ~ P*Q/f
And the reaction counter mass that the frustum is pushing against is ~ E/c2. Therefore, you want to maximize energy storage. Higher frequency will have lower Q and much lower energy storage for the same power input.
This is true when you scale the frustum with frequency. If you keep the dimensions constant and allow a higher mode to be present,the Q also increases with frequency. ;)
I have tested this for the "p" value only but I am pretty sure it's true for the other intrgers of TXmnp also.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1536095#msg1536095
Looking at the data in your post. Q/f is getting smaller as Q is getting bigger. The frequency gets bigger, faster. Even though the Q is lower for a lower frequency, there is more energy stored for the "same" power input.
-
You guys are connecting the dots about the choice of Shawyer selecting TE013 over lower or higher modes… as well as over any TM mode. Some sort of compromise to achieve greatest stored energy and Q near one end.
What would be the approximative size of a L-band ~900 MHz TE013 frustum? Governmental regulators decided to set frequencies for industrial magnetrons and now solid-state microwave generators (http://www.wattsine.com/power-source/solid-state-mw1.html): 433, 896, 915, 922, 929, 2450, 5800 MHz. Any frequency can be achieved with a lab RF power amp (in the tens to hundreds of watts) but microwave generators built for the industry work with higher power in the kilowatt range (and maybe at an attractive cost, I don't know).
-
You guys are connecting the dots about the choice of Shawyer selecting TE013 over lower or higher modes… as well as over any TM mode. Some sort of compromise to achieve greatest stored energy and Q near one end.
What would be the approximative size of a L-band ~900 MHz TE013 frustum? Governmental regulators decided to set frequencies for industrial magnetrons and now solid-state microwave generators (http://www.wattsine.com/power-source/solid-state-mw1.html): 433, 896, 915, 922, 929, 2450, 5800 MHz. Any frequency can be achieved with a lab RF power amp (in the tens to hundreds of watts) but microwave generators built for the industry work with higher power in the kilowatt range (and maybe at an attractive cost, I don't know).
The frequencies you note are a subset of the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) frequencies within which certain regulated parameters like unintentional leakage radiation are relaxed compared to other frequencies. The ISM bands are mostly harmonically related so that one can use low quality sources that may have significant second/third harmonic output.
It's usually the case that $/Watt within the ISM bands is lower than at other frequencies. Some of this is due to economies of scale (think of how many microwave ovens there are at 2450 MHz) and some because of the less stringent design requirements for ISM sources.
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
Hummm!!! Should tell that to Paul March! Taken from: Frustum modes overview 2 with Q-Factors_Rev-A.pdf
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
-
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
You just stated one of the biggest single issues with the EM Drive.
The list of forces that can escape the cavity is real short.
-
I believe with the many sims performed by X_Ray and Monomorphic that reliably stimulating TE012 or TE013 has been demonstrated by "correct" placement of the antenna(ae). Not to mention that NASA said they would be using PLL for the campaign...AIAA peer review study.
It is understood that NASA went with what mode that "worked best" from their previous study. I would have hoped they could have at least moved forward with TE012 since that would work in the geometry of their frustum. Moving forward with a x2 large geometry would put us in the Megahertz range 1.8804/2=0.9402, so what would this do to the Q of 22,000? Quadruple or?
Attachments NASA Frustum TE012 in simulation, original dimensions and then reduced/scaled down by 2.794 for a cubesat placement (images by X_Ray)
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
Hummm!!! Should tell that to Paul March! Taken from: Frustum modes overview 2 with Q-Factors_Rev-A.pdf
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
If microwave energy was escaping the microwave cavity in any amount please stand back further from your microwave oven.
It may be better to look at what can enter the cavity that the cavity energy can act upon then what maybe escaping, other than a little thermal activity.
Shell
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
Hummm!!! Should tell that to Paul March! Taken from: Frustum modes overview 2 with Q-Factors_Rev-A.pdf
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
If you input enough power to melt the copper, sure it can get out. This is Faraday's law of induction. My conjecture is that magnetic flux can escape when there is a voltage drop in the copper, where current is flowing. Regardless however, even a perfectly collimated photon rocket of the same power would not produce nearly as much thrust as has been measured by experiments. So that's probably not it.
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
Hummm!!! Should tell that to Paul March! Taken from: Frustum modes overview 2 with Q-Factors_Rev-A.pdf
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
If microwave energy was escaping the microwave cavity in any amount please stand back further from your microwave oven.
It may be better to look at what can enter the cavity that the cavity energy can act upon then what maybe escaping, other than a little thermal activity.
Shell
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
[/quote]
If microwave energy was escaping the microwave cavity in any amount please stand back further from your microwave oven.
It may be better to look at what can enter the cavity that the cavity energy can act upon then what maybe escaping, other than a little thermal activity.
Shell
[/quote]
Shell, I didn't say microwaves were escaping :) But something could.. The way I see it is that the cavity could work a bit like a rectifier allowing only one half of the wave to show up beyond the frustum as evanescent wave. If the front end of the wave is sticking out, it is a lower time rate i.e. gravity; the cavity moves toward it without never reaching it. This is like imparting half of an inertial wave to the cavity. A better constructed cavity would have the half back end of the wave sticking out at the back of the cavity and a front end wave sticking out at the front of the cavity. This full wave inertial and causal structure would impart a complete push-pull action to the cavity. These sticking out half waves would also influence locally detectors like pendulum etc.
So, the question is ... is something coming out of the frustum? I suggested liquid crystal and polarizer to detect/visualize any stable electrical differential on the outer surface of the frustum...
I have read enough around here to know that the whole adventure is highly empirical and in bad need of some theory or explanation. And, an equation is a really bad substitute for thinking things out..
-
This illustration appears to answer my previous question about whether or not something is known to (or could) come out of the frustum under certain conditions. This would not be considered a closed system, right?
No, this is just a bad graphic representation. The vectors should end at the end plates.
Hummm!!! Should tell that to Paul March! Taken from: Frustum modes overview 2 with Q-Factors_Rev-A.pdf
Why? Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
If you input enough power to melt the copper, sure it can get out. This is Faraday's law of induction. My conjecture is that magnetic flux can escape when there is a voltage drop in the copper, where current is flowing. Regardless however, even a perfectly collimated photon rocket of the same power would not produce nearly as much thrust as has been measured by experiments. So that's probably not it.
Way before the copper melts, its resistivity will increase creating voltage drop across the thickness of the frustum and charges on the outside surface .... which will radiate, what ????
-
...
I noticed your antenna placement was not exactly on the electric field maximum. If you raise the antenna loop towards the top a bit, and increase its diameter to be in the electric field maximum, I suspect it would enhance the coupling of the antenna to the cavity. Edit: I maybe wrong on the diameter as that may depend on the wavelength of the current in the antenna.
On a side note, I found this thesis for those interested in whispering gallery modes. It deals with, "cavities with an axial asymmetry", toroids, gallery modes, Mode-Matching Analysis, and large Q values. I was curious about it because of it mentioning coupling energy into a toroid cavity. Not sure it would be all that useful but figured it mentioned a lot of subjects frequently discussed. Mode-Matching Analysis of Whispering-Gallery-Mode Cavities (https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/5113/Du_Xuan_MASc_2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
Thanks Oliverio. Can I quote you?
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior.
@flux_capacitor Obviously we can't discuss the stuff in the leaked paper that's still linked to in the Next Big Future article, but is there a source for the stuff we can't discuss in your second and third paragraphs??
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
I was wondering this and hasn't this leak damaged the examination of the EM drive by mudding the waters and allowing further perhaps unwarranted criticism of the EW to be made?
-
Let's not waste Sonny's money by reading the rough draft. He's paid for Open Access, so let's await the real thing.
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior.
@flux_capacitor Obviously we can't discuss the stuff in the leaked paper that's still linked to in the Next Big Future article, but is there a source for the stuff we can't discuss in your second and third paragraphs??
It was some pun from my part about the situation (but with real information in my post). To be more serious, I think we can discuss anything here, providing we don't directly link to any protected material. The discussion will be harder to follow without pictures, but we can make similar pictures from scratch if necessary. It will also be harder to follow without direct quotes of the paper, but we can express the same meanings with our own different words. When you just talk about a theater movie, or film a remake of your own, you don't infringe any copyright rules ;)
I also suspect that some news included in the bunch of information released then deleted, especially pictures and movies, will not be discussed in the EW peer-reviewed paper, that may focus only about torsion pendulum tests.
So I think the paper will exclude any mention to an air bearing rotary test rig integrating power supply and showing plotted acceleration for hours; a teeter-totter balance with magnetron; and the very interesting new fact that an anomalous force not only still exists without a dielectric near small end, but also the fact that the force reverses when a dielectric is either placed (detected force vector big to small) or removed (vector small to big).
-
There seems to be a belief that no forces exist outside of the frustum, correct? Has anybody confirmed that no such forces exist. For example, has anybody placed a scale beneath or above a static frustum (but not touching it.)? Just curious.
-
Are you telling me that the frustum is a perfect shielding no matter the power injected into the cavity?
Has this been tested or is this a general assumption? It seems to me that the effects are detected outside the cavity (pendulum etc.) and yet everyone is only looking inside the cavity ..
I certainly plan to measure signal outside cavity with measurement loop + spectrum analyzer.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
I think otherwise, that it is the real deal. First, TT never said it was an early draft, pretty much the opposite. Also remember Eagleworks' paper has been approved for publication back in late August 2016, and the leaked PDF metadata has precisely the same date. We shall see soon, only in a few weeks now.
-
Let's not waste Sonny's money by reading the rough draft. He's paid for Open Access, so let's await the real thing.
Are you serious? Of course I'm reading it!
Who can resist that? I don't approve leaking such a paper, but now that it's on the street...
'-)
-
Maybe China's Microwave propulsion has been sent into space.
Please provide some information supporting this rumor, at least provide what is the source of the rumor and what kind of microwave propulsion are you referring to. For example Prof. Juan Yang has been working on two kinds of microwave propulsion:
A) Conventional, well-known, old-style microwave propulsion using a propellant, she has been doing this for a long time and this is what she still has in her University profile
B) closed cavity EM Drive microwave cavity using no propellant. Prof. Yang's University profile does not feature this any longer.
If China has sent to Space a conventional, well-known, old-style microwave propulsion using a propellant, then the rumor has no significance and is potentially misleading to readers that may confuse the EM Drive with conventional microwave propulsion using a propellant, as such a microwave propulsion using a propellant is well understood in the West and it would not be any significant leap in technology, as such microwave propulsion using a propellant was developed in the West before it was investigated in China.
-
...
I can not say too much, Professor Yang's team improved thruster, R & D team completed a ground thrust measurement, is likely to have been sent into space, a few days ago.
Again, which kind?
A) Conventional microwave propulsion using a propellant that Yang has been working on for many years. Not noteworthy, this technology is well known in the West and does not constitute any leap in technology
B) an EM Drive with no propellant, that Yang worked on for a few years, but no further news on the University website.
If you don't differentiate between A and B, your rumor is potentially very misleading as readers may interpret you as saying that an EM Drive with no propellant was sent by China into Space, when actually what may have been sent is an old-style well known microwave propulsion with propellant !!!
-
...
I can not say too much, Professor Yang's team improved thruster, R & D team completed a ground thrust measurement, is likely to have been sent into space, a few days ago.
Again, which kind?
A) Conventional microwave propulsion using a propellant that Yang has been working on for many years. Not noteworthy, this technology is well known in the West and does not constitute any leap in technology
B) an EM Drive with no propellant
If you don't differentiate between A and B, the rumor is potentially very misleading
Haha !!do you think I am referring to the A? I have just assembled a EMDRIVE, and I have studied it for several years.
Ha Ha? Why aren't you explicit as to what you refer to instead of people having to interpret tea leaves ?
And what does what you have been studying for years have to do with China sending things into Space? Are you saying that you are connected to China's Space program?
If you heard that China sent an EM Drive with no propellant into Space why don't you just state that?
-
A receiver engineer now retired, who worked during many years on the IRAM 30m radio-telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAM_30m_telescope), invented the first hybrid cryostat in 1981 (see reference attached). That simple hybrid cryostat extracted heat and cooled a device down to 2.7K, by conducting boiled helium gas. This scheme could be adapted to cool an EmDrive down to LN2 temperature instead of He at a cheeper cost, with lighter insulation and no need for the cryocooler. This would allow very high Q high Tc superconducting EmDrives, but it would also allow manifold increase of the Q in conventional copper frustums.
That engineer, who I think is not posting on NSF, has made an interesting hypothesis a few days ago on TheTraveller's own google group, about the reversed thrust when a dielectric is either present or absent in the frustum near the small end, involving dispersion/heat dissipation/electrical losses, an idea that makes me think about the notsosureofit Hypothesis (http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis) and WarpTech's theory (http://emdrive.wiki/Todd_Desiato_(@WarpTech)%27s_Evanescent_Wave_Theory).
Eagleworks has indeed detected, for the same frustum:
- Force small to big without a dielectric.
- Force big to small with a dielectric (PE disc) at small end.
He then posits the force vector always points towards the lossiest end of the frustum. For a metallic frustum, the big end with a larger area is lossier and the vector would point small to big. Introducing a plastic dielectric would shift most of the losses within, in its location inside the frustum (small end) and would shift the vector accordingly (big to small).
Of course, other effects would come into play, like location of greatest energy within the frustum, under different EM modes.
Following that view, a new hypothesis arises regarding Shawyer's partially new superconducting EmDrive described in his latest patent application (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647).
According to this hypothesis, that new frustum could be put within a vacuum dewar not described in the patent and entirely cooled down (cooling would not only be applied to the big superconducting end as the patent suggests). The asymmetry loss of the two ends, with a perfectly reflecting superconducting plate at one side and a non-superconducting but cooled silver mirror at the other side, plus the boiled liquid gas pumped by the cryostat, would produce an asymmetric lossy mechanism that would continuously get rid of the heat inside the frustum in order to:
- keep overall temperature low
- keep overall Q high
- keep the YBCO plate superconducting
- keep the heat most away from the YBCO plate
- introduce a continuous lossy mechanism at small end and a gradient within the frustum, with a shift in the momentum or center of mass of the EM waves, like described by notsosureofit and WarpTech (similar to the light escaping the resonant cavity of a laser through one partially reflecting mirror, except in the frustum the losses are due to ohmic heat and/or evanescent waves).
Hence a frustum that is not entirely superconducting, which would prevent dissipation (asymmetric dissipation, more exactly).
@notsosureofit, WarpTech and others: comments welcome :)
-
Another hypothesis by the same engineer about the use of sapphire in Shawyer's news design, that I summarize below:
First, as a side note on dielectrics: according to TheTraveller, dielectrics used by Eagleworks are PE discs and this kind of plastic dielectrics has NEVER been used by Roger Shawyer, even in its early designs. The dielectric Shawyer used in his experimental thruster, before he completely dropped those in successive hollow frustum designs, was in fact a very high Q ceramic resonator. The ceramic resonator at that time was not intended to introduce a lossy mechanism or shift the operating frequency within the frustum. It was a high Q (of around 100,000) ceramic rod resonant at 2.45 GHz with the outer end silver plated (to act as a reflective end plate) and axially adjustable in and out of the frustum until the inner end becomes resonant with the TE012 internal frequency, tuned to wave front interface to the frustum standing wave. That was completely different from the direction followed by Eagleworks with the PE discs.
Sapphire resonators
Sapphire resonators achieve enormous Q of 109 at 10 GHz frequency with low phase noise when cooled by closed cycle pulse tube cryocooler at a temperature of 6 K.
That would explain the cavity filling 5 τ of 1 second. This cavity filling time plus discharging time of total 2 seconds appears inappropriate because the YBCO together with the silver plated mirror could only reach a Q of about 106 and never reach the maximum Q value of 109. But sapphire could be excited with subharmonic frequency. Once filled, the stored energy would be fed from the subharmonic of the 10 GHz sapphire resonator, at 5 GHz or so, extending the "ringtime" (radar talk) of the frustum.
This is just an idea put in the air.
-
Another hypothesis by the same engineer about the use of sapphire in Shawyer's news design, that I summarize below:
First, as a side note on dielectrics: according to TheTraveller, dielectrics used by Eagleworks are PE discs and this kind of plastic dielectrics has NEVER been used by Roger Shawyer, even in its early designs. The dielectric Shawyer used in his experimental thruster, before he completely dropped those in successive hollow frustum designs, was in fact a very high Q ceramic resonator. The ceramic resonator at that time was not intended to introduce a lossy mechanism or shift the operating frequency within the frustum. It was a high Q (of around 100,000) ceramic rod resonant at 2.45 GHz with the outer end silver plated (to act as a reflective end plate) and axially adjustable in and out of the frustum until the inner end becomes resonant with the TE012 internal frequency, tuned to wave front interface to the frustum standing wave. That was completely different from the direction followed by Eagleworks with the PE discs.
Sapphire resonators
Sapphire resonators achieve enormous Q of 109 at 10 GHz frequency with low phase noise when cooled by closed cycle pulse tube cryocooler at a temperature of 6 K.
That would explain the cavity filling 5 τ of 1 second. This cavity filling time plus discharging time of total 2 seconds appears inappropriate because the YBCO together with the silver plated mirror could only reach a Q of about 106 and never reach the maximum Q value of 109. But sapphire could be excited with subharmonic frequency. Once filled, the stored energy would be fed from the subharmonic of the 10 GHz sapphire resonator, at 5 GHz or so, extending the "ringtime" (radar talk) of the frustum.
This is just an idea put in the air.
It fits in many ways.
One being the second helical antenna looks to be a close match for around 10GHz about 1/3 of the size of the main helical. I'll need to look further into this thought.
Shell
-
Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
-
Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
I really question the veracity that the US AirForce is testing the EM Drive in the X-37B: we know that they are testing instead a conventional Hall Thruster using Xenon propellant.
There are good scientific and technical reasons to test the Hall Thruster in the X-37B (they have to do with examining the damage experienced by certain components in the Hall Thruster upon long-duration exposure in Low Earth Orbit, and hence why it is advantageous to recover the Hall Thruster and examine it when the X-37B returns). There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
So I take all this (particularly the IBTimes article about the X-37B testing the EM Drive) with a very skeptical grain of salt.
The Hall thrusters on the current flight use an electric field to accelerate xenon propellant, producing a small but steady thrust that’s useful for many types of spacecraft, including military communications satellites already in orbit. Brian Weeden, technical adviser for the Secure World Foundation, thinks the Air Force might also be testing the thrusters with an eye toward placing reconnaissance satellites in lower orbits, so that imaging sensors could take higher-resolution pictures of targets on the ground.
“I think the clue is how low an orbit [the X-37B] is in,” says Weeden. The spaceplane is orbiting at an altitude of about 320 kilometers (a little under 200 miles), which is lower than the International Space Station. Low orbits require more maneuvering, and therefore more fuel, to maintain. And fuel adds weight. “One of the reasons that the traditional exquisite imaging satellites are so hard to launch is because they’re big and they’re heavy,” says Weeden. Hall thrusters could enable lighter, cheaper reconnaissance satellites to be orbited.
Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/spaceplane-x-37-180957777/#kvQUiMsrqOBDCRjv.99
-
I really question the veracity that the US AirForce is testing the EM Drive in the X-37B: we know that they are testing instead a conventional Hall Thruster using Xenon propellant.
Suggest you keep an eye on:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/innovation
They seem to be very active with EmDrive information and were the 1st to confirm the SPR & Gilo Universal Propulsion JV.
Wonder what Universal Propulsion would make?
-
I really question the veracity that the US AirForce is testing the EM Drive in the X-37B: we know that they are testing instead a conventional Hall Thruster using Xenon propellant.
Suggest you keep an eye on:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/innovation
They seem to be very active with EmDrive information and were the 1st to confirm the SPR & Gilo Universal Propulsion JV.
Wonder what Universal Propulsion would make?
I note that there is a severe discrepancy between the information printed by the IBTimes ( http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289 ) and the one posted by oyzw.
I heard that EMDRIVE is likely to have been mounted on a satellite to the earth synchronous orbit, but I do not know whether the boot operation.China's scientific research system has always been low-key
The Tiangong-2 has an Apogee of only 378.4 km and a Perigee of only 369.65 km, which is nowhere near the Earth synchronous orbit discussed by oyzw.
A synchronous orbit is an orbit in which the orbiting object (for example, an artificial satellite or a moon) takes the same amount of time to complete an orbit as it takes the object it is orbiting to rotate once.
A synchronous orbit need not be equatorial; nor circular. A body in a non-equatorial synchronous orbit will appear to oscillate north and south above a point on the planet's equator, whereas a body in an elliptical orbit will appear to oscillate eastward and westward.
A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth).
Hence whoever gave the information to the IBTimes, it disagrees by a factor of 100 from the information given by oyzw from China. ::)
-
Hence whoever gave the information to the IBTimes, it disagrees by a factor of 100 from the information given by oyzw from China. ::)
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments about her retirement were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
-
The Tiangong-2 has an Apogee of only 378.4 km and a Perigee of only 369.65 km, which is nowhere near the Earth synchronous orbit discussed by oyzw.
A synchronous orbit is an orbit in which the orbiting object (for example, an artificial satellite or a moon) takes the same amount of time to complete an orbit as it takes the object it is orbiting to rotate once.
A synchronous orbit need not be equatorial; nor circular. A body in a non-equatorial synchronous orbit will appear to oscillate north and south above a point on the planet's equator, whereas a body in an elliptical orbit will appear to oscillate eastward and westward.
A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth).
Hence whoever gave the information to the IBTimes, it disagrees by a factor of 100 from the information given by oyzw from China. ::)
That is why I mentioned the Shijian-17 as it was put in a geostationary orbit. It was also launched a "few days ago" - which was the language used by oyzw.
-
...
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
I recall that you were the first one to post at NSF the rumor about the Chinese testing the EM Drive in orbit.
According to your source in China, approximately when was the EM Drive launched into orbit by the Chinese?
Thank you.
Don't have that info. Was just informed it had happened, which would be before I posted the info.
-
...
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
I recall that you were the first one to post at NSF the rumor about the Chinese testing the EM Drive in orbit.
According to your source in China, approximately when was the EM Drive launched into orbit by the Chinese?
Thank you.
Don't have that info. Was just informed it had happened, which would be before I posted the info.
For the record, you posted this information on October 23, 2016:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602565#msg1602565
Interesting rumour just arrived.
Seems the Chinese have tested a EmDrive on station but have no idea why it works. Maybe they should talk to Roger or Gilo Industries?
Sure hope the X-37B is testing a better EmDrive on station.
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289)...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
-
Everybody noticing the increase in EmDrive related News events hitting the circuits?
I expect Universal Propulsion (the SPR & Gilo) JV is getting ready to do a product release plus both the US and the Chinese are making it certain that the press knows they also have EmDrives.
Should be interesting.
Oh BTW my frustum fabricators knew straight away what my plans were. Was told many EmDrives are being built in China. They even suggested a few antenna tweaks.
My sources also say the Indians have an active EmDrive research program.
Roger claims 7 countries have EmDrive programs, in addition to those on his list.
-
...
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
I recall that you were the first one to post at NSF the rumor about the Chinese testing the EM Drive in orbit.
According to your source in China, approximately when was the EM Drive launched into orbit by the Chinese?
Thank you.
Don't have that info. Was just informed it had happened, which would be before I posted the info.
For the record, you posted this information on October 23, 2016:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602565#msg1602565
So the Chinese launch was some time earlier.
-
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources, plus you now have Oyzw telling you of other EmDrive launches and that Prof Yang did not retire. Seems he was fed false info to spread on NSF.
-
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources.
Everybody noticing the increase in EmDrive related News events hitting the circuits?
I expect Universal Propulsion (the SPR & Gilo) JV is getting ready to do a product release plus both the US and the Chinese are making it certain that the press knows they also have EmDrives.
Should be interesting.
Oh BTW my frustum fabricators knew straight away what my plans were. Was told many EmDrives are being built in China. They even suggested a few antenna tweaks.
My sources also say the Indians have an active EmDrive research program.
Roger claims 7 countries have EmDrive programs, in addition to those on his list.
Interesting times. If these things scale, the strategic concept of continental separation may as well not exist.
-
Most of you are discussing advanced topics, but I am still more or less in the 'plumbing phase'. Fortunately, according to Paul March, I don't have to get skilled in silver soldering but can use ordinary lead/tin solder as well to make a reasonable microwave cavity. That will save some time. :)
Best,
Peter
from thread 5
« on: 10/18/2015 04:45 AM »
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March
Looking at the pictures in the leaked document, I see they are still using the same frustum.
-
Interesting times. If these things scale, the strategic concept of continental separation may as well not exist.
They scale and your suggestion is of course a very major military security issue.
Just remember Roger told us he was working with a unnamed Uk aerospace company on a wing and prop less drone, which most of you totally ignored. Now we know he is working and has a JV with Gilo Industries which supplies their engine to drone manufacturers and have a VERY STRONG desire to build a flying car.
So what many thought was Roger just talking, has turned out to be factual. I suggest it would be very foolish to ignore what IBT and Roger are doing, creating a credibility enhancement program, with what one would suspect to be a product launch some time in 2017. BTW Roger did say he would demo a EmDrive propulsed drone in 2017.
Tick Tock.
It is all happening.
-
Most of you are discussing advanced topics, but I am still more or less in the 'plumbing phase'. Fortunately, according to Paul March, I don't have to get skilled in silver soldering but can use ordinary lead/tin solder as well to make a reasonable microwave cavity. That will save some time. :)
Best,
Peter
Trust me Peter the frustum needs flanges that allow the end plates to be removed. By exciting in TE013 mode, you eliminate eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall, If you excite in some other mode and if the joint is not good you may get arching across the joint. With TE013 all you need is a good compression fitting between frustum flange and end plate.
The SPR Flight Thruster is a very good example of how to build a TE013 frustum.
I'm happy to share and help you with the dimensions and build suggestions.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...yet the more I read...
-
With an eye towards the ISM bands, what kind of dimensions would you want for a 902 to 928 Mhz frustum?
Supplementary question, is it better to target a narrow bandwidth, or to target the full, allotted spectrum at 915 +/- 13 MHz?
-
I can not say too much, Professor Yang's team improved thruster, R & D team completed a ground thrust measurement, is likely to have been sent into space, a few days ago.
Nice to learn Prof Yang did not retire and received additional funding to continue her EmDrive work.
-
With an eye towards the ISM bands, what kind of dimensions would you want for a 902 to 928 Mhz frustum?
Supplementary question, is it better to target a narrow bandwidth, or to target the full, allotted spectrum at 915 +/- 13 MHz?
Need a single freq to design to. Doesn't matter to the frustum design or excited mode what it is. Does matter to the Rf amp that is has enough bandwidth to trace resonance / reflected power changes as the frustum gets warm and moves. So maybe pick the centre of the Rf amp bandwidth and design for that frequency.
-
With an eye towards the ISM bands, what kind of dimensions would you want for a 902 to 928 Mhz frustum?
Supplementary question, is it better to target a narrow bandwidth, or to target the full, allotted spectrum at 915 +/- 13 MHz?
Need a single freq to design to. Doesn't matter to the frustum design or excited mode what it is. Does matter to the Rf amp that is has enough bandwidth to trace resonance / reflected power changes as the frustum gets warm and moves. So maybe pick the centre of the Rf amp bandwidth and design for that frequency.
This raises an engineering first principles question, then; do you design the frustum around the RF system, or the RF system around the frustum? It sounds like you strongly prefer the former.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
-
With an eye towards the ISM bands, what kind of dimensions would you want for a 902 to 928 Mhz frustum?
Supplementary question, is it better to target a narrow bandwidth, or to target the full, allotted spectrum at 915 +/- 13 MHz?
Need a single freq to design to. Doesn't matter to the frustum design or excited mode what it is. Does matter to the Rf amp that is has enough bandwidth to trace resonance / reflected power changes as the frustum gets warm and moves. So maybe pick the centre of the Rf amp bandwidth and design for that frequency.
This raises an engineering first principles question, then; do you design the frustum around the RF system, or the RF system around the frustum? It sounds like you strongly prefer the former.
You select the freq, understanding Q is larger with a large / lower freq frustum but not that much. Then you need to look at price and availability of Rf amps for the desired freq. Ideally those Rf amps will have inbuilt attenuator and forward/reverse power monitoring so you only need a variable freq source and a way to auto adjust freq to lowest reflected power. Plus you need a low cost S11 VNA to map the frustums resonant modes and do a rough calc on Q / VSWR.
Once you have the Rf system, then you design the frustum.
Attached is how I track the freq.
-
There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
-
Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
I really question the veracity that the US AirForce is testing the EM Drive in the X-37B: we know that they are testing instead a conventional Hall Thruster using Xenon propellant.
There are good scientific and technical reasons to test the Hall Thruster in the X-37B (they have to do with examining the damage experienced by certain components in the Hall Thruster upon long-duration exposure in Low Earth Orbit, and hence why it is advantageous to recover the Hall Thruster and examine it when the X-37B returns). There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
So I take all this (particularly the IBTimes article about the X-37B testing the EM Drive) with a very skeptical grain of salt.
The Hall thrusters on the current flight use an electric field to accelerate xenon propellant, producing a small but steady thrust that’s useful for many types of spacecraft, including military communications satellites already in orbit. Brian Weeden, technical adviser for the Secure World Foundation, thinks the Air Force might also be testing the thrusters with an eye toward placing reconnaissance satellites in lower orbits, so that imaging sensors could take higher-resolution pictures of targets on the ground.
“I think the clue is how low an orbit [the X-37B] is in,” says Weeden. The spaceplane is orbiting at an altitude of about 320 kilometers (a little under 200 miles), which is lower than the International Space Station. Low orbits require more maneuvering, and therefore more fuel, to maintain. And fuel adds weight. “One of the reasons that the traditional exquisite imaging satellites are so hard to launch is because they’re big and they’re heavy,” says Weeden. Hall thrusters could enable lighter, cheaper reconnaissance satellites to be orbited.
Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/spaceplane-x-37-180957777/#kvQUiMsrqOBDCRjv.99
Well there was something odd about it as unlike the other launches no pictures at all were released leading to speculation that something has been added to its outside that the USAF didn't want seen. I do wonder if we will even see any landing videos this time.
-
Everybody noticing the increase in EmDrive related News events hitting the circuits?
You sound so proud about breaching the trust of Paul March. You should be embarrassed and at the very least apologetic.
-
Most of you are discussing advanced topics, but I am still more or less in the 'plumbing phase'. Fortunately, according to Paul March, I don't have to get skilled in silver soldering but can use ordinary lead/tin solder as well to make a reasonable microwave cavity. That will save some time. :)
Best,
Peter
Trust me Peter the frustum needs flanges that allow the end plates to be removed. By exciting in TE013 mode, you eliminate eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall, If you excite in some other mode and if the joint is not good you may get arching across the joint. With TE013 all you need is a good compression fitting between frustum flange and end plate.
The SPR Flight Thruster is a very good example of how to build a TE013 frustum.
I'm happy to share and help you with the dimensions and build suggestions.
Yes, I plan to build one with flanges. The frustum on the picture looks a bit massive, though. For my torsion balance, it would be nice if the mass does not exceed 2 kg too much. At most 3 kg.
That means using 0.5 mm copper plate and flanges not thicker than 5 mm.
I appreciate your help. Would you recommend other dimensions than given by Brady et al.?
Peter
-
Someone asked earlier what size a 900Mhz emdrive would be. Here is an image showing the different scales. All three cavities are designed to resonate at mode TE013 but at specific frequencies. The smallest is C-band at 5.8Ghz, the next is S-band at 2.4Ghz, and the largest is at the requested 900Mhz. All dims are in cm. So a 900Mhz TE013 emdrive has a major plate diameter of 44cm or 17.3 inches and would be ~38cm or ~15 inches in height.
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
As repeated many times before, the "Boeing took the emDrive black" is just a conspiracy theory, and there is evidence against it since they still would have needed further SPR contracts to use the data.
Your claim that Yang's paper was somehow a secret signal, is just silly, and makes you guilty of ignoring experimental data, like you like to accuse others of. 3rd hand anonymous sources do not somehow override published data.
All of the recent statements about X-37B and Chinese experiments are based on pure speculation and "sources" that appear to be 3rd hand or more. Most likely these may involve mis-translations, or misunderstandings of taking "electric propulsion" to mean emDrive rather than ion drive.
"His theory has been through several academic and industry groups" No evidence has ever been provided that it has, and his theory is internally inconsistent, and I know of no way to rescue it. Some other theories around here that have been proposed are at least plausible, but his is not.
Can we all calm down a little bit, take a few steps back and separate out the facts from the speculation, hyperbole, and crystal ball like statements about future events?
-
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
Frustum size scales linearly with the frequency, so it's really easy to figure that out. I've not done that, but i have confirmed in FEKO that it scales linearly.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
As repeated many times before, the "Boeing took the emDrive black" is just a conspiracy theory, and there is evidence against it since they still would have needed further SPR contracts to use the data.
Your claim that Yang's paper was somehow a secret signal, is just silly, and makes you guilty of ignoring experimental data, like you like to accuse others of. 3rd hand anonymous sources do not somehow override published data.
All of the recent statements about X-37B and Chinese experiments are based on pure speculation and "sources" that appear to be 3rd hand or more. Most likely these may involve mis-translations, or misunderstandings of taking "electric propulsion" to mean emDrive rather than ion drive.
"His theory has been through several academic and industry groups" No evidence has ever been provided that it has, and his theory is internally inconsistent, and I know of no way to rescue it. Some other theories around here that have been proposed are at least plausible, but his is not.
Can we all calm down a little bit, take a few steps back and separate out the facts from the speculation, hyperbole, and crystal ball like statements about future events?
But on the other hand I suspect you have no evidence to definitely say that there aren't elements of truth in this, especially in the case of the Chinese.
-
It was some pun from my part about the situation (but with real information in my post). To be more serious, I think we can discuss anything here, providing we don't directly link to any protected material. The discussion will be harder to follow without pictures, but we can make similar pictures from scratch if necessary. It will also be harder to follow without direct quotes of the paper, but we can express the same meanings with our own different words. When you just talk about a theater movie, or film a remake of your own, you don't infringe any copyright rules ;)
I also suspect that some news included in the bunch of information released then deleted, especially pictures and movies, will not be discussed in the EW peer-reviewed paper, that may focus only about torsion pendulum tests.
So I think the paper will exclude any mention to an air bearing rotary test rig integrating power supply and showing plotted acceleration for hours; a teeter-totter balance with magnetron; and the very interesting new fact that an anomalous force not only still exists without a dielectric near small end, but also the fact that the force reverses when a dielectric is either placed (detected force vector big to small) or removed (vector small to big).
Ah, I missed the original post, and just saw the paper. Did the post actually have movies of the rotating rig? Are they still on the internets somewhere?
-
It was some pun from my part about the situation (but with real information in my post). To be more serious, I think we can discuss anything here, providing we don't directly link to any protected material. The discussion will be harder to follow without pictures, but we can make similar pictures from scratch if necessary. It will also be harder to follow without direct quotes of the paper, but we can express the same meanings with our own different words. When you just talk about a theater movie, or film a remake of your own, you don't infringe any copyright rules ;)
I also suspect that some news included in the bunch of information released then deleted, especially pictures and movies, will not be discussed in the EW peer-reviewed paper, that may focus only about torsion pendulum tests.
So I think the paper will exclude any mention to an air bearing rotary test rig integrating power supply and showing plotted acceleration for hours; a teeter-totter balance with magnetron; and the very interesting new fact that an anomalous force not only still exists without a dielectric near small end, but also the fact that the force reverses when a dielectric is either placed (detected force vector big to small) or removed (vector small to big).
Ah, I missed the original post, and just saw the paper. Did the post actually have movies of the rotating rig? Are they still on the internets somewhere?
Yes, and yes ;)
Search for a recent article of IBtimes, to begin with.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
As repeated many times before, the "Boeing took the emDrive black" is just a conspiracy theory, and there is evidence against it since they still would have needed further SPR contracts to use the data.
Your claim that Yang's paper was somehow a secret signal, is just silly, and makes you guilty of ignoring experimental data, like you like to accuse others of. 3rd hand anonymous sources do not somehow override published data.
All of the recent statements about X-37B and Chinese experiments are based on pure speculation and "sources" that appear to be 3rd hand or more. Most likely these may involve mis-translations, or misunderstandings of taking "electric propulsion" to mean emDrive rather than ion drive.
"His theory has been through several academic and industry groups" No evidence has ever been provided that it has, and his theory is internally inconsistent, and I know of no way to rescue it. Some other theories around here that have been proposed are at least plausible, but his is not.
Can we all calm down a little bit, take a few steps back and separate out the facts from the speculation, hyperbole, and crystal ball like statements about future events?
But on the other hand I suspect you have no evidence to definitely say that there aren't elements of truth in this, especially in the case of the Chinese.
SPR's lack of a follow on Boeing contract and Yang's paper are evidence.
Also, I do not have any evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist. This does not mean that we should be repeating a 3rd hand story about a guy who swears he saw bigfoot, and treating it as proof of bigfoot's existence.
I just want the parade of rumors being treated like facts to stop.
-
Sorry, but I made a scaling mistake on my previous image so I deleted that post. The difference between 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz is pretty substantial! :o
Here is the revised image showing the different scales. All three cavities are designed to resonate at mode TE013 but at specific frequencies. The smallest is C-band at 5.8Ghz, the next is S-band at 2.4Ghz, and the largest is at the requested 900Mhz. All dims are in cm. So a 900Mhz TE013 emdrive has a major plate diameter of ~85cm and would be ~67cm in height.
-
Monomorphic, can you please tell us what the calculated "Q" is for each of these cavities.
THNX FL
-
There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
The reasons why not to use the X-37B have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much higher priority projects for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a regular rocket launch.
Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit). The X-37B capability to bring back things from Space is a very unique capability that presently has no equal. There are several much higher priority projects (to the USAF) that can really benefit from this unique capability of the X-37B.
-
There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
I stated that <<There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.>> the reasons why not to use the X-37B for this have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much better things for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a Space-X or another rocket flight.
Why do you need to recover the EM Drive ? Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit).
Off the top of my head, I would imagine the same reason ATK liked to look at the Shuttle SRBs after recovery: post flight analysis. I'm not sure why they'd need to send it all the way to space for operational and life cycle testing instead of just leaving it in a vacuum chamber for a while, though.
-
Another hypothesis by the same engineer about the use of sapphire in Shawyer's news design, that I summarize below:
First, as a side note on dielectrics: according to TheTraveller, dielectrics used by Eagleworks are PE discs and this kind of plastic dielectrics has NEVER been used by Roger Shawyer, even in its early designs. The dielectric Shawyer used in his experimental thruster, before he completely dropped those in successive hollow frustum designs, was in fact a very high Q ceramic resonator. The ceramic resonator at that time was not intended to introduce a lossy mechanism or shift the operating frequency within the frustum. It was a high Q (of around 100,000) ceramic rod resonant at 2.45 GHz with the outer end silver plated (to act as a reflective end plate) and axially adjustable in and out of the frustum until the inner end becomes resonant with the TE012 internal frequency, tuned to wave front interface to the frustum standing wave. That was completely different from the direction followed by Eagleworks with the PE discs.
Sapphire resonators
Sapphire resonators achieve enormous Q of 109 at 10 GHz frequency with low phase noise when cooled by closed cycle pulse tube cryocooler at a temperature of 6 K.
That would explain the cavity filling 5 τ of 1 second. This cavity filling time plus discharging time of total 2 seconds appears inappropriate because the YBCO together with the silver plated mirror could only reach a Q of about 106 and never reach the maximum Q value of 109. But sapphire could be excited with subharmonic frequency. Once filled, the stored energy would be fed from the subharmonic of the 10 GHz sapphire resonator, at 5 GHz or so, extending the "ringtime" (radar talk) of the frustum.
This is just an idea put in the air.
These are great ideas, and also point to why Shawyers latest patent, showing a YBCO superconductor on a sapphire substrate is....odd, as I've pointed out previously.
Sapphire is a superlative high frequency dielectric. It exhibits a very flat and stable epsilon (dielectric constant) over the frequencies of interest, and over temperature (to a point). It is somewhat commonly used to make variable VHF-UHF-uwave capacitors.
Having said that, the YBCO is INSIDE of the patented cavity, shielding the Al2O3 (sapphire) substrate from providing any dielectric effect. Unless Shawyer is relying on the poor performance of YBCO under RF conditions to "leak" (which it will) into the sapphire? Interesting idea, if so, but bass-ackwards engineering. There are much better methods of getting Q enhancement with sapphire/superconductor resonance.
@Phil, you might suggest to Roger that he retain the sapphire substrate, but apply niobium to the EXTERIOR surface, with the niobium wrapped around the sapphire disc edges so that it makes DC/RF contact with the walls of the frustum large end. The downside is that he will need helium cooling and the sapphire would have to be VERY thin, the upside is that with the proper Al2O3 thickness, he will establish Q enhancing resonance between the inductive niobium and the capacitive sapphire. He might even consider his present scheme, but with the YCBO replaced with niobium, anodized to replace the sapphire with niobium oxide (also an excellent microwave dielectric). Yes, it's a three (or 5) layer approach, and would require an oxide layer of about 3 microns (my back of the envelope calculation), but should boost Q to roughly 1x10^12 at the large end (if niobium/Al2O3 or niobium/NbO2 resonance is achieved).
>Edit: clarified superconductor/oxide layers
-
...
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
I recall that you were the first one to post at NSF the rumor about the Chinese testing the EM Drive in orbit.
According to your source in China, approximately when was the EM Drive launched into orbit by the Chinese?
Thank you.
Don't have that info. Was just informed it had happened, which would be before I posted the info.
For the record, you posted this information on October 23, 2016:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602565#msg1602565
So the Chinese launch was some time earlier.
The satellite was launched last week.
-
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources, plus you now have Oyzw telling you of other EmDrive launches and that Prof Yang did not retire. Seems he was fed false info to spread on NSF.
Professor Yang did not retire, but emdrive's research and development work was handed over to another team two years ago
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
Thanks Oliverio. Can I quote you?
Only if you want to quote a speculative layman, though my information is correct.
To whomever claimed that this recent paper was leaked by Thetraveller under the claim that it is a recent draft, I beg to differ. His claim was that the paper consisted of an early draft. If you doubt this, I am sure the Unedit Reddit tool can display the leaked post.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Your argument that time and space do not exist is fascinating. Lao Tzu would not agree because it is the space inside the jug that we store things in and time surely is the sequence we live amongst. The sense of unreality you are dealing with probably comes from the lack of suitability of purely linear time to anchor an appreciation of electrical dynamics against. Only complex time is adequate for that.
Complex time allows an immediate interaction of all charges with all other charges by electrical interaction. Complex time also has the real component of separation which we perceive as distance. Clock time is the real component of complex time and it is useful because it helps us to navigate the nearly flat surface upon which we live but complex time is necessary to describe location within the constantly evolving electrical interconnection of everything.
It is the real component of complex time which we measure with the clock and its rate is dependent upon location. Location is dependent upon perspective due to the evolution of the separation between charges with acceleration of the observer and the direction of electrical interaction is dependent upon perspective as well. We learn this from relativity.
If you look to four dimensional space to fashion an explanation for emdrive thrust the alternatives are either to accept Shawyer’s explanation that the constancy of the speed of light circumvents the conservation of momentum or you conjure an explanation involving a local reaction with virtual particles which have been invented or tailored for the purpose. Neither is adequate.
In my opinion the emdrive employs an asymmetry of current density, amplified by resonance, interacting electrically with the remote universe. This is not apparent within a visualization built in Euclidian space any more than it becomes apparent with the study of General Relativity. Special Relativity is however, the fundamental reality upon which a simpler understanding of the action of the emdrive can be developed.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
True. I never thought otherwise. I've monitored what I release here because of it.
Shell
PS: That said, thank you for your input and honesty.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Your argument that time and space do not exist is fascinating. Lao Tzu would not agree because it is the space inside the jug that we store things in and time surely is the sequence we live amongst. The sense of unreality you are dealing with probably comes from the lack of suitability of purely linear time to anchor an appreciation of electrical dynamics against. Only complex time is adequate for that.
Complex time allows an immediate interaction of all charges with all other charges by electrical interaction. Complex time also has the real component of separation which we perceive as distance. Clock time is the real component of complex time and it is useful because it helps us to navigate the nearly flat surface upon which we live but complex time is necessary to describe location within the constantly evolving electrical interconnection of everything.
It is the real component of complex time which we measure with the clock and its rate is dependent upon location. Location is dependent upon perspective due to the evolution of the separation between charges with acceleration of the observer and the direction of electrical interaction is dependent upon perspective as well. We learn this from relativity.
If you look to four dimensional space to fashion an explanation for emdrive thrust the alternatives are either to accept Shawyer’s explanation that the constancy of the speed of light circumvents the conservation of momentum or you conjure an explanation involving a local reaction with virtual particles which have been invented or tailored for the purpose. Neither is adequate.
In my opinion the emdrive employs an asymmetry of current density, amplified by resonance, interacting electrically with the remote universe. This is not apparent within a visualization built in Euclidian space any more than it becomes apparent with the study of General Relativity. Special Relativity is however, the fundamental reality upon which a simpler understanding of the action of the emdrive can be developed.
I suspect that you are right. I suspect that a perfectly cylindrical cavity would thrust as well (or as poorly) as any other shape. I suspect that if that is so, for maximum thrust, the cylinder must be perfectly reflecting at one end, and optimized to leak energy at the other end in a manner that maximizes resonance, while maximizing leakage (impedance match to free space, which I have mentioned before). I suspect that the thrust signatures observed by various experiments are a result of the leakage (RF, infrared, evanescent waves, other; pick one) from one end interacting with the external universe in some method heretofor unrecognized.
I also suspect that I'm completely wrong.
-
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
Frustum size scales linearly with the frequency, so it's really easy to figure that out. I've not done that, but i have confirmed in FEKO that it scales linearly.
Roughly speaking, .001" would be ~200kHz, and .00001" would be ~2kHz.
Does anyone know of an example of a resonant cavity that is driven by a repetitious impulse, rather than a sine wave? Like a Tesla coil spark gap. I'm working on a way to do this, to avoid the high cost and low power of the RF amplifier.
-
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
Frustum size scales linearly with the frequency, so it's really easy to figure that out. I've not done that, but i have confirmed in FEKO that it scales linearly.
Roughly speaking, .001" would be ~200kHz, and .00001" would be ~2kHz.
Does anyone know of an example of a resonant cavity that is driven by a repetitious impulse, rather than a sine wave? Like a Tesla coil spark gap. I'm working on a way to do this, to avoid the high cost and low power of the RF amplifier.
Which means that even an Invar alloy cavity will de-tune itself by a few kHz to a MHz just from thermal creep if you let it get hot enough. Good to know :)
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it.
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
A very Machian point of view, shared by many physicists e.g. Rovelli and (perhaps not anymore) Smolin. And of course Woodward.
-
Good morning everyone,
I have some very interesting news to you. It seems some newspapers know how to dig "deep" for information :-). Anyway if this is true I suspect that "second" team in China is doing their job.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
Article also righfuly mentions that false test by China, but also points that they very likely did not lose their interest in the EmDrive unit.
-
There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature.
Wrong.
EW built a torsion pendulum and tested their copper frustum with and without dielectric, with force measered in both configurations. Force direction reversed with and without dielectric.
EW built a rotary test rig and tested their copper frustum with dielectric, with rotation reversingvas the frustum was reversed.
EW built a magnetron powered balance beam and tested their non dielectric Alum frustum. Weight change was measured on the scale at the other end of the balance beam.
All the frustums & test rigs verified the measurements, test rigs and frustums that Roger measured 2002 to 2006.
-
There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
The reasons why not to use the X-37B have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much higher priority projects for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a regular rocket launch.
Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit). The X-37B capability to bring back things from Space is a very unique capability that presently has no equal. There are several much higher priority projects (to the USAF) that can really benefit from this unique capability of the X-37B.
As an engineer that has built EmDrives, I strongly disagree.
It is VERY important to get the EmDrive back so as to evaluate how the drive ages and changes after lengthy operation in space. Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination are just a few of the issues necessary to answer by having returned space operated EmDrives.
As you point out, it is only the X-37B that has that capability.
-
Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole. ;D Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
Yes it is as I suspected. I know chinese policy on those things very well, but I did not want to go public with this to endanger the research of the EmDrive in the China. I am sure those people are reading this forum.
-
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources, plus you now have Oyzw telling you of other EmDrive launches and that Prof Yang did not retire. Seems he was fed false info to spread on NSF.
Professor Yang did not retire, but emdrive's research and development work was handed over to another team two years ago
Your information generally agrees with that supplied by 2 other sources.
Basically the Chinese gov took her work dark and expanded the effort & team.
Thanks for also confirming that China is flying EmDrives in space. May I add that of course any sat fitted with an EXPERIMENTAL EmDrive would not use it as the primary thruster abd would have other thrusters as primary, so yes those sats would have Ion or gas thrusters.
-
This is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources, plus you now have Oyzw telling you of other EmDrive launches and that Prof Yang did not retire. Seems he was fed false info to spread on NSF.
Professor Yang did not retire, but emdrive's research and development work was handed over to another team two years ago
Your information generally agrees with that supplied by 2 other sources.
Basically the Chinese gov took her work dark and expanded the effort & team.
Thanks for also confirming that China is flying EmDrives in space. May I add that of course any sat fitted with an EXPERIMENTAL EmDrive would not use it as the primary thruster abd would have other thrusters as primary, so yes those sats would have Ion or gas thrusters.
We should also be bit careful about this topic. Only because I do not want us to endanger those people in china. We know chinese goverment do not joke around and can be quite cruel on its own people..
-
Good morning everyone,
I have some very interesting news to you. It seems some newspapers know how to dig "deep" for information :-). Anyway if this is true I suspect that "second" team in China is doing their job.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
Article also righfuly mentions that false test by China, but also points that they very likely did not lose their interest in the EmDrive unit.
Nice statement by Roger:
In the meantime Roger Shawyer is patenting a new EmDrive thruster that features a single flat superconducting plate on one end, while the other end is a unique shaped plate that is non-superconducting.
He plans to manufacture thousands of the devices as part of his joint venture with UK aerospace firm Gilo Industries Group, and hopes that the EmDrive can be used to reduce the cost and time to space, as well as powering flying cars and helping to solve the global energy crisis.
-
Another hypothesis by the same engineer about the use of sapphire in Shawyer's news design, that I summarize below:
First, as a side note on dielectrics: according to TheTraveller, dielectrics used by Eagleworks are PE discs and this kind of plastic dielectrics has NEVER been used by Roger Shawyer, even in its early designs. The dielectric Shawyer used in his experimental thruster, before he completely dropped those in successive hollow frustum designs, was in fact a very high Q ceramic resonator. The ceramic resonator at that time was not intended to introduce a lossy mechanism or shift the operating frequency within the frustum. It was a high Q (of around 100,000) ceramic rod resonant at 2.45 GHz with the outer end silver plated (to act as a reflective end plate) and axially adjustable in and out of the frustum until the inner end becomes resonant with the TE012 internal frequency, tuned to wave front interface to the frustum standing wave. That was completely different from the direction followed by Eagleworks with the PE discs.
Sapphire resonators
Sapphire resonators achieve enormous Q of 109 at 10 GHz frequency with low phase noise when cooled by closed cycle pulse tube cryocooler at a temperature of 6 K.
That would explain the cavity filling 5 τ of 1 second. This cavity filling time plus discharging time of total 2 seconds appears inappropriate because the YBCO together with the silver plated mirror could only reach a Q of about 106 and never reach the maximum Q value of 109. But sapphire could be excited with subharmonic frequency. Once filled, the stored energy would be fed from the subharmonic of the 10 GHz sapphire resonator, at 5 GHz or so, extending the "ringtime" (radar talk) of the frustum.
This is just an idea put in the air.
These are great ideas, and also point to why Shawyers latest patent, showing a YBCO superconductor on a sapphire substrate is....odd, as I've pointed out previously.
Sapphire is a superlative high frequency dielectric. It exhibits a very flat and stable epsilon (dielectric constant) over the frequencies of interest, and over temperature (to a point). It is somewhat commonly used to make variable VHF-UHF-uwave capacitors.
Having said that, the YBCO is INSIDE of the patented cavity, shielding the Al2O3 (sapphire) substrate from providing any dielectric effect. Unless Shawyer is relying on the poor performance of YBCO under RF conditions to "leak" (which it will) into the sapphire? Interesting idea, if so, but bass-ackwards engineering. There are much better methods of getting Q enhancement with sapphire/superconductor resonance.
@Phil, you might suggest to Roger that he retain the sapphire substrate, but apply niobium to the EXTERIOR surface, with the niobium wrapped around the sapphire disc edges so that it makes DC/RF contact with the walls of the frustum large end. The downside is that he will need helium cooling and the sapphire would have to be VERY thin, the upside is that with the proper Al2O3 thickness, he will establish Q enhancing resonance between the inductive niobium and the capacitive sapphire. He might even consider his present scheme, but with the YCBO replaced with niobium, anodized to replace the sapphire with niobium oxide (also an excellent microwave dielectric). Yes, it's a three (or 5) layer approach, and would require an oxide layer of about 3 microns (my back of the envelope calculation), but should boost Q to roughly 1x10^12 at the large end (if niobium/Al2O3 or niobium/NbO2 resonance is achieved).
>Edit: clarified superconductor/oxide layers
My understanding is that Roger/Gilo needs to use LN2 cooling as that makes very simple thrusters for say to power a paraglider. So for any market sector that can benefit from several hours of thrust as the LN2 store boils off, YBCO is the game.
BTW I've been offer YBCO with 3uOhm Rs at 3.85GHz at 77K (LN2). Can make a really nice 10^8 frustum with that! More than enough thrust to levitate. With 3 could levitate me and all the support systems for several hours. Might need to add a heated pressure suit & Oxy tank to make LEO or higher still.
-
My understanding is that Roger/Gilo needs to use LN2 cooling as that makes very simple thrusters fir say to power a paraglider. So for any market sector that can benefit from several hours of thrust as the LN2 store boils off, YBCO is the game.
BTW I've been offer YBCO with 3uOhm Rs at 3.85GHz at 77K (LN2). Can make a really nice 10^8 frustum with that! More than enough thrust to levitate. With 3 could levitate me and all the support systems for several hours. Might need to add a heated pressure suit & Oxy tanks.
;D Good luck if you try it Phil. You've worked hard over the last couple of years. And take care of yourself and follow the Doctors orders.
-
Good morning everyone,
I have some very interesting news to you. It seems some newspapers know how to dig "deep" for information :-). Anyway if this is true I suspect that "second" team in China is doing their job.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
Article also righfuly mentions that false test by China, but also points that they very likely did not lose their interest in the EmDrive unit.
So the article claims not just China but that even the USAF is testing EMdrive using X-37B - it sounds like the info came from Shawyer himself - anyone know if this is true or false? If this is even remotely plausible, what applications would USAF see in this? Station-keeping perhaps? I assume that the farthest USAF cares to travel is still within Earth orbit, for Earth observation purposes.
Can EMdrive in principle just be powered by solar energy? Or would something more powerful like RTG be required for maneuvering within Earth's gravity well?
-
Good morning everyone,
I have some very interesting news to you. It seems some newspapers know how to dig "deep" for information :-). Anyway if this is true I suspect that "second" team in China is doing their job.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
Article also righfuly mentions that false test by China, but also points that they very likely did not lose their interest in the EmDrive unit.
So the article claims not just China but that even the USAF is testing EMdrive using X-37B - it sounds like the info came from Shawyer himself - anyone know if this is true or false? If this is even remotely plausible, what applications would USAF see in this? Station-keeping perhaps? I assume that the farthest USAF cares to travel is still within Earth orbit, for Earth observation purposes.
Can EMdrive in principle just be powered by solar energy? Or would something more powerful like RTG be required for maneuvering within Earth's gravity well?
That article reads as if they just pulled information out of this thread. It does not provide any evidence or source for it claims. It doesn't even state something like "an official who spoke on condition of anonymity", it just says "IBTimes has been informed."
Articles having their sources directly be from the threads on this site is surprisingly common, and not just from this section. This is part of why I asked in my previous posts that we not treat rumors and random speculation about probably non-existent government emDrives as if they were facts.
-
This is part of why I asked in my previous posts that we not treat rumors and random speculation about probably non-existent government emDrives as if they were facts.
Fact is the EmDrive works and has done so since 2002.
Are you suggesting no government would be interested?
We do know from Roger's public statements that SPR supplied complete build data to Boeing/Phantom Works, which they built and confirmed to SPR it met contract specs. Then according to Roger, there was no more contact. Are you saying Roger's statement is not accurate?
-
Might I suggest we focus our attention on known, relatively public EM Drive programs, and set the conspiracies and unverifiable claims aside?
-
This is part of why I asked in my previous posts that we not treat rumors and random speculation about probably non-existent government emDrives as if they were facts.
Fact is the EmDrive works and has done so since 2002.
Are you suggesting no government would be interested?
We do know from Roger's public statements that SPR supplied complete build data to Boeing/Phantom Works, which they built and confirmed to SPR it met contract specs. Then according to Roger, there was no more contact. Are you saying Roger's statement is not accurate?
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
I am not saying that it didn't meet contract specs. I haven't seen the contract, but a contract for providing a prototype can be completed even if tests show that the device doesn't work, depending on the contract details. Since there was an option for a follow on contract that was not taken, it is reasonable to think that the follow on contract award would be dependent on the prototype working, and it wasn't awarded because it didn't work. I find this more reasonable than what you imply which amounts to Boeing stealing Shawyer's IP and Shawyer not suing them over it.
-
.....
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
......
While I don't think it is meaningful to say anything about the Shawyer/Boeing deal, simply because there is way too little information publicly known, I do question your remark above.
The new test's done by the NASA Eagleworks team may not yet have been perfect (as some were eager to point out on the reddit forum and reach the sigma 5 standard, which is considered to be proof in a scientific environment....
BUT,
it most certainly delivered such a jaw-dropping and intriguing result that it is now absolute necessary to spend more energy/money into the research this observed phenomenon. The test performed was certainly of a high enough standard to warrant additional effort. That, I'm very positive about it.
From my perspective , this leaked testing info tilted my opinion from a maybe/maybe_not (50/50) towards a "probably yes" (say 90/10). Definitive? nope, not yet, but "highly probably" for sure...
Also, the leaked info most probably did some damage to the people involved , like Eagleworks crew, but at the same time, it forces everybody into an accelerating forward direction because the only way to keep an advantage in this race is to keep improving. The more development is happening around the world the faster it will percolate into our daily lives...
So while i do not approve what Phill did ( I have a less flamboyant/assertive communication style), I do understand his motivations, especially with the bad medical news he received. In fact, it triggered a personal question for me, of what I would do if I where in his shoes...
You know, a man/woman can do strange things when faced with his/her own mortality...
The recent revelations on possible deliberate disinformation campaigns really come as punch in the face, even if I had it taken into account somewhere in the back of my head...
-
For sure many hardened deniers will continue to deny the combined experimental data from:
the EW atmo paper,
the EW vac paper,
the EW rotary test rig and
the EW balance beam,
which verified and confirmed what Roger measured 2002 to 2006.
But those who focus on the totality of ALL the EW test results will find a powerful result and the truth.
That is why I released ALL the EW test data, as combined with the vac results, there can be no doubt the EmDrive does work as claimed.
Time now to bring forward theory that explains ALL the test data.
-
.....
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
......
While I don't think it is meaningful to say anything about the Shawyer/Boeing deal, simply because there is way too little information publicly known, I do question your remark above.
The new test's done by the NASA Eagleworks team may not yet have been perfect (as some were eager to point out on the reddit forum and reach the sigma 5 standard, which is considered to be proof in a scientific environment....
BUT,
it most certainly delivered such a jaw-dropping and intriguing result that it is now absolute necessary to spend more energy/money into the research this observed phenomenon. The test performed was certainly of a high enough standard to warrant additional effort. That, I'm very positive about it.
From my perspective , this leaked testing info tilted my opinion from a maybe/maybe_not (50/50) towards a "probably yes" (say 90/10). Definitive? nope, not yet, but "highly probably" for sure...
Also, the leaked info most probably did some damage to the people involved , like Eagleworks crew, but at the same time, it forces everybody into an accelerating forward direction because the only way to keep an advantage in this race is to keep improving. The more development is happening around the world the faster it will percolate into our daily lives...
So while i do not approve what Phill did ( I have a less flamboyant/assertive communication style), I do understand his motivations, especially with the bad medical news he received. In fact, it triggered a personal question for me, of what I would do if I where in his shoes...
You know, a man/woman can do strange things when faced with his/her own mortality...
The recent revelations on possible deliberate disinformation campaigns really come as punch in the face, even if I had it taken into account somewhere in the back of my head...
The EW vac paper is just one set of experimental data. As I stated in my earlier post, it is the combined weight of ALL the EW experimental data that supports and lifts the vac results paper to 100/0.
Why EW did not release
The reverse thrust with no dielectric data,
The rotary test rig data,
The balance beam data,
is something I could not understand.
That test data was not classified and was paid for by US tax payers. It is very important data and it deserves to be seen and to be supportative of the vac paper.
-
.....
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
......
While I don't think it is meaningful to say anything about the Shawyer/Boeing deal, simply because there is way too little information publicly known, I do question your remark above.
The new test's done by the NASA Eagleworks team may not yet have been perfect (as some were eager to point out on the reddit forum and reach the sigma 5 standard, which is considered to be proof in a scientific environment....
BUT,
it most certainly delivered such a jaw-dropping and intriguing result that it is now absolute necessary to spend more energy/money into the research this observed phenomenon. The test performed was certainly of a high enough standard to warrant additional effort. That, I'm very positive about it.
From my perspective , this leaked testing info tilted my opinion from a maybe/maybe_not (50/50) towards a "probably yes" (say 90/10). Definitive? nope, not yet, but "highly probably" for sure...
Also, the leaked info most probably did some damage to the people involved , like Eagleworks crew, but at the same time, it forces everybody into an accelerating forward direction because the only way to keep an advantage in this race is to keep improving. The more development is happening around the world the faster it will percolate into our daily lives...
So while i do not approve what Phill did ( I have a less flamboyant/assertive communication style), I do understand his motivations, especially with the bad medical news he received. In fact, it triggered a personal question for me, of what I would do if I where in his shoes...
You know, a man/woman can do strange things when faced with his/her own mortality...
The recent revelations on possible deliberate disinformation campaigns really come as punch in the face, even if I had it taken into account somewhere in the back of my head...
The EW vac paper is just one set of experimental data. As I stated in my earlier post, it is the combined weight of ALL the EW experimental data that supports and lifts the vac results paper to 100/0.
Why EW did not release
The reverse thrust with no dielectric data,
The rotary test rig data,
The balance beam data,
is something I could not understand.
That test data was not classified and was paid for by US tax payers. It is very important data and it deserves to be seen and to be supportative of the vac paper.
Hopefully the rotary rig will be in a later paper? "The Smoking Gun"
Besides the RPM numbers (r per hour!) do you know if there is a calculation of force or acceleration from the rotary rig? I guess it would need some sort of calibration force to calculate.
I am curious how it correlates to the numbers in the current paper. I think the calculation method (eg assuming the constant slope is thermal, and subtracting it out) leaves a bit to be desired, and is attachable by skeptics, so another different measure that's says the same thing would be great as a confirmation.
-
As far I now, EW didn't release anything yet.. you did.. :p
But...maybe they do have "other" information that was not yet shared/leaked?
So before hitting the barricades, maybe we should see what EW will indeed release?
You sure have put some pressure on them now....
Not sure yet if that is a good or bad thing...Time will tell, I suppose...???
But I'll agree on the importance of the data. It does give me the confidence to set a step in your direction and confirm it does indeed have all the appearances that the EMdrive works.
I'm remaining cautious however, but that's my personal attitude in life : there are no 100% certainties.. ;)
I can only hope that those who are still extremely critical towards the EMdrive, that they spend their effort in assisting to improve the testing instead of spending their energy and time in accusing it to be "fraud" and "cooked up by crackpots"...
-
Might I suggest we focus our attention on known, relatively public EM Drive programs, and set the conspiracies and unverifiable claims aside?
Well said. We'll start a new thread shortly, with a new rule that this thread isn't for wacky links to nonsense. EM Drive is absolutely outside of what NSF covers, but there's community members like Shell, Rodal and a number of other very good members who make it viable. That does not, however, allow for crap like "They are testing EM Drive on the X-37B", which is total nonsense and the X-37B IS what we cover here, so we'd know.
-
.....
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
......
While I don't think it is meaningful to say anything about the Shawyer/Boeing deal, simply because there is way too little information publicly known, I do question your remark above.
The new test's done by the NASA Eagleworks team may not yet have been perfect (as some were eager to point out on the reddit forum and reach the sigma 5 standard, which is considered to be proof in a scientific environment....
BUT,
it most certainly delivered such a jaw-dropping and intriguing result that it is now absolute necessary to spend more energy/money into the research this observed phenomenon. The test performed was certainly of a high enough standard to warrant additional effort. That, I'm very positive about it.
From my perspective , this leaked testing info tilted my opinion from a maybe/maybe_not (50/50) towards a "probably yes" (say 90/10). Definitive? nope, not yet, but "highly probably" for sure...
Also, the leaked info most probably did some damage to the people involved , like Eagleworks crew, but at the same time, it forces everybody into an accelerating forward direction because the only way to keep an advantage in this race is to keep improving. The more development is happening around the world the faster it will percolate into our daily lives...
So while i do not approve what Phill did ( I have a less flamboyant/assertive communication style), I do understand his motivations, especially with the bad medical news he received. In fact, it triggered a personal question for me, of what I would do if I where in his shoes...
You know, a man/woman can do strange things when faced with his/her own mortality...
The recent revelations on possible deliberate disinformation campaigns really come as punch in the face, even if I had it taken into account somewhere in the back of my head...
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew scepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
-
I would like to point to a report I found online called:
*** On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive *** ( published online 7 June 2016 )
Link to source location:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Link to the full PDF:
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/journal/adva/6/6/1.4953807.pdf?expires=1478605721&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=22EEC29C17DA4A01654F383981E20F3A
It provides a expanation on how EM-Drive thrust is generated.
I have not seen anyting like this on these forums.
Hopefully some here can respond to this.
They claim that the EM drive consumes free energy in the form of propellant electromagnetic fields by pairing photons with opposite phases to non-polarized expellant.
91.2 μN with 16.9 W at 1932.6 MHz corresponding to the first TM211 mode in the tapered cavity having a quality factor of about 7320
Is it correct that that is 5.396 mN/kW, that’s 4.5x higher then the 1.2 mN/kW from the other report.
-
I would like to point to a report I found online called:
*** On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive *** ( published online 7 June 2016 )
Link to source location:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Link to the full PDF:
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/journal/adva/6/6/1.4953807.pdf?expires=1478605721&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=22EEC29C17DA4A01654F383981E20F3A
It provides a expanation on how EM-Drive thrust is generated.
I have not seen anyting like this on these forums.
Hopefully some here can respond to this.
They claim that the EM drive consumes free energy in the form of propellant electromagnetic fields by pairing photons with opposite phases to non-polarized expellant.
91.2 μN with 16.9 W at 1932.6 MHz corresponding to the first TM211 mode in the tapered cavity having a quality factor of about 7320
Is it correct that that is 5.396 mN/kW, that’s 4.5x higher then the 1.2 mN/kW from the other report.
Thanks. This paper was discussed in Thread 7, pages 159 to 166, from this starting point with SeeShells and Rodal (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1549999#msg1549999).
-
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew skepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
The results obtained from the EW team are good enough to continue and intensify the research on the
EMdrive.
I can understand it does not yet meet the extremely high standards (sigma 5) needed to be considered scientifically accepted, but i do not understand people that continue to claim it is a waste of effort.
There is "something" going on that needs to be investigate further...
The chances that it is a mere measurement error were significantly reduced (but not zero). Research should only stop when it becomes100% clear what is the real cause of the observed force(s)...
Instead of turning it into a pissing contest on the EW crew, they would do far better to offer help in order to iron out the points they're criticizing...
I see really no point in discrediting Dr White's and P.March's experimental effort and reputation, just because they do not like their physics hypothesis. Seriously.... ::)
-
BTW I've been offer YBCO with 3uOhm Rs at 3.85GHz at 77K (LN2). Can make a really nice 10^8 frustum with that! More than enough thrust to levitate. With 3 could levitate me and all the support systems for several hours. Might need to add a heated pressure suit & Oxy tank to make LEO or higher still.
Good, but take care Phil.
(http://i.giphy.com/asrtJulKX4WoU.gif)
-
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew skepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
The results obtained from the EW team are good enough to continue and intensify the research on the
EMdrive.
I can understand it does not yet meet the extremely high standards (sigma 5) needed to be considered scientifically accepted, but i do not understand people that continue to claim it is a waste of effort.
There is "something" going on that needs to be investigate further...
The chances that it is a mere measurement error were significantly reduced (but not zero). Research should only stop when it becomes100% clear what is the real cause of the observed force(s)...
Instead of turning it into a pissing contest on the EW crew, they would do far better to offer help in order to iron out the points they're criticizing...
I see really no point in discrediting Dr White's and P.March's experimental effort and reputation, just because they do not like their physics hypothesis. Seriously.... ::)
They seem to favour still spinning the line that it's all explained as experimental error, even applied to the latest results.
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTd5VBrfrQ#
-
1701B fine leak test capable
-
There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
The reasons why not to use the X-37B have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much higher priority projects for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a regular rocket launch.
Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit). The X-37B capability to bring back things from Space is a very unique capability that presently has no equal. There are several much higher priority projects (to the USAF) that can really benefit from this unique capability of the X-37B.
As an engineer that has built EmDrives, I strongly disagree.
It is VERY important to get the EmDrive back so as to evaluate how the drive ages and changes after lengthy operation in space. Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination are just a few of the issues necessary to answer by having returned space operated EmDrives.
As you point out, it is only the X-37B that has that capability.
Why use a unique asset like the X-37B to <<evaluate... Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination >>, these interior surface effects can all be studied in a vacuum chamber on Earth. The purpose of studying the effect on the Hall Thruster recovered by the X-37B is to look at the effect on its long-term exposure to exterior surface impact from micro-debris on low earth orbit, where the debris is densely populated (as is well documented on solar cell surface damage, for example). Also exposure to high energy particles in Space. EM Drive experimenters claim that the EM Drive is a closed cavity able to self-accelerate without exhausting any propellant, hence there should not be any critical issues with exterior surface damage for such a concept. No way for micro-debris and high energy particles to enter an EM Drive cavity that is supposed to be closed.
... crap like "They are testing EM Drive on the X-37B", which is total nonsense and the X-37B IS what we cover here, so we'd know.
well said
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/STS-118_debris_entry.jpg)
(http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/gallarypage/HstAntenna.JPG)
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f019f4ee570fc59233e739013645ff1f-c?convert_to_webp=true)
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-69c3f24e26b34b0d984b8ec772dc14d9-c?convert_to_webp=true)
-
Why use a unique asset like the X-37B to <<evaluate... Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination >>, these interior surface effects can all be studied in a vacuum chamber on Earth. The purpose of studying the effect on the Hall Thruster recovered by the X-37B is to look at the effect on its long-term exposure to exterior surface impact from micro-debris on low earth orbit, where the debris is densely populated (as is well documented on solar cell surface damage, for example).
There actually are a few problems that could come up from trying to develop an EM Drive test article meant for ultra high vacuum. A UHV chamber system needs to be baked out at above 100 degrees Celsius for several hours for out-gassing; polymers are a no go, necessitating ceramics be used in their place. Special glues are also required. Screws, blind holes, and welding processes other than electron beam, laser beam, and gas tungsten arc welding are unacceptable due to the potential for impurities and trapped gasses. All said and done, building an EM drive that was suitable for ultra-high-vacuum chamber operation for the sole purpose of representative operational life testing might be inordinately difficult, unless it's engineered start to finish with UHV chamber testing in mind.
EDIT 2: How do you test a pressurized gas system that's meant for space operations? These questions are starting to need the expertise of NSF's experienced space ops folks if I want to do better than guess.
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
You have never explained why it displaced a similar amount in tests with a working and a broken magnetron. I don't know whether the broken magnetron test moved due to thermal convection, thermal expansion, Lorentz forces or other, but since the displacement was similar, the most logical conclusion is that the displacement in the tests with a working magnetron was likely due to the same (non-emdrive) effect.
-
That does not, however, allow for crap like "They are testing EM Drive on the X-37B", which is total nonsense and the X-37B IS what we cover here, so we'd know.
You know about EVERY device that is carried and tested on the X-37B?
Amazing, especially as most are classified.
We know enough here to know that a claim that it definitely is being tested on there is nonsense, because even if it was, the information that it was would be very well controlled, just like all of the other payloads that we have absolutely no information on.
There can be wild speculation on the possibility of one being on the X-37B, but that is not how it was being discussed here by some. Plus wild speculation is generally not helpful except in threads that are specifically for wild speculation.
-
I would like to point to a report I found online called:
*** On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive *** ( published online 7 June 2016 )
Link to source location:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Link to the full PDF:
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/journal/adva/6/6/1.4953807.pdf?expires=1478605721&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=22EEC29C17DA4A01654F383981E20F3A
It provides a expanation on how EM-Drive thrust is generated.
I have not seen anyting like this on these forums.
Hopefully some here can respond to this.
They claim that the EM drive consumes free energy in the form of propellant electromagnetic fields by pairing photons with opposite phases to non-polarized expellant.
91.2 μN with 16.9 W at 1932.6 MHz corresponding to the first TM211 mode in the tapered cavity having a quality factor of about 7320
Is it correct that that is 5.396 mN/kW, that’s 4.5x higher then the 1.2 mN/kW from the other report.
The mode EW used was not the one with the highest specific force that being 21.3mN/kWrf or 55.4uN @ 2.6Wrf, TE012, 1,880.4MHz as attached.
The test mode was one highly isolated from other modes, so mode swapping would not occur.
You also need to factor in that when the small end dielectric was removed and the EmDrive retuned, the generated force swapped from big to small to small to big. Can that theory explain this force direction change? Can any theory explain this force direction change.
What this force direction change does is to clearly show the generated forces is not thermal nor Lorentz. Sure there are both effects present but they are NOT what is generating the measured force.
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-leaked-nasa-paper-reveals-star-trek-microwave-thruster-does-work-1590244#
Check that video of moving EmDrive. The one in the middle. That is Dr.White right? I did not see that video yet.
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-leaked-nasa-paper-reveals-star-trek-microwave-thruster-does-work-1590244#
Check that video of moving EmDrive. The one in the middle. That is Dr.White right? I did not see that video yet.
As Galileo once said: "and yet it moves".
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
You have never explained why it displaced a similar amount in tests with a working and a broken magnetron. I don't know whether the broken magnetron test moved due to thermal convection, thermal expansion, Lorentz forces or other, but since the displacement was similar, the most logical conclusion is that the displacement in the tests with a working magnetron was likely due to the same (non-emdrive) effect.
The vid link above was the new and final magnetron. The displacements were not the same as the magnetron failed to lock in later pcm tests moving from wax to another material. The general slope was similar but not the bumps. This I attribute to frequency staying high with high reflectivity and mag core heating. There were no appreciable deviation to the thermal slope during power on conditions in later tests. Failure occurred while evaluating new pcm. This caused me to scrap the mag entirely. The pcm experiments were a failed attempt to reduce the thermal slope as indicated in the vid.
-
To all,
I've build 2 labs and I'm currently doing my 3rd. I've built 3 different frustums and currently on my 4th. Each step has been to refine my data, narrow the error and enhance the thrust anomaly. You all have been following me for the last 1-1/2 years and watched and even commented on the advances and failures. This last effort will be able to provide very clear and concise testing data. This was done without embracing theory, other than Maxwell's and a few others. I've seen anomalous thrusts without anything other than the copper and microwaves, I've seen anomalous thrusts with dielectrics, I've seen anomalous thrusts with a kitchen sink PZT approach.
The first powered on pretest last year (December) I exceeded the load cell in my small digital scale in a powered jerk action and delightfully turned antennas and magnetrons into matchsticks. Before the smoke cleared I interestingly a saw a large impulse from the system before failure. This is truly where it started. This was my "that's interesting" moment.
This last build, in a new lab and with a new device, when I'm done I'll have no qualms of it passing my peer reviews in independent testings and labs, if it shows real thrusts. I know it needs to be done and that it is a step in the process. If I find out what I've been seeing is a build or test bed error, I truly win and can go back to sitting in my hot tub more than I do now and fully retire. If it's truly a propulsion-less device, we all win big time and the hot tub time will have to wait.
There is a lot of critical debate going on and it's a good thing, there is nothing wrong with it. It's driven me to spend thousands of hours, refining the builds and the test stands. I've been building things for over 50 years, building them to work and understanding why they work has been the hallmark of my life. This is no different.
Oh, one other thing. If you think me, 67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!
My Very Best,
Shell
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
1) What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
2) What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
3) What is the type of solution method?
A) Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna in the model?
B) Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
C) Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
D) If you used an antenna, with a spectral steady-state solution or a transient Finite-Difference-Time-Domain solution, what was the type of antenna and where was it located?
4) What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model? Are you assuming a perfect conductor?
If not, how are you modeling an imperfect conductor like copper?
5) How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
6) How are eddy currents calculated in the model?
Thanks
-
To all,
Oh, one other thing. If you think me, 67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!
My Very Best,
Shell
I admire your dedication to this testing. I never seen anything like that before :-). What is admirable is also that you are able to "keep your cool" in all this informations and news coming in and do the rigid and great scientific work.
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
Very interesting data.
I'm happy to see the flat end plate to side wall joint is free of eddy currents crossing over, which means it is buildable with a removable end plate.
Plus the end plate fields look like TE01x, which is also good.
Nice work.
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
1) What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
2) What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
3) What is the type of solution method?
A) Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna in the model?
B) Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
C) Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
D) If you used an antenna, with a spectral steady-state solution or a transient Finite-Difference-Time-Domain solution, what was the type of antenna and where was it located?
4) What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model? Are you assuming a perfect conductor?
If not, how are you modeling an imperfect conductor like copper?
5) How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
6) How are eddy currents calculated in the model?
Thanks
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1386990;image)
6. Good question, It's a internal calculation of FEKO, don't know their code ;)
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
What is the type of solution method? Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna? Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
Great questions Dr. Rodal!
I have a couple others.
Is the antenna your using a optimized point dipole from FEKO to excite the fields? If it is then the levels might not be real world and could be almost a order of magnitude to high. If that's the case then maybe running it with a loop or helical antenna will provide better data.
Shell
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
PEC. Coudn't belefe therefor I used Copper, thickness 1mm
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
You should redo the parabola in all Cu, instead of the SS base plate, to compare apples to apples. It would also be good to see the Brady frustum with the same input conditions and no dielectric.
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
Another Q: What was the input power set to?
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
PEC. Coudn't belefe therefor I used Copper, thickness 1mm
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
You should redo the parabola in all Cu, instead of the SS base plate, to compare apples to apples. It would also be good to see the Brady frustum with the same input conditions and no dielectric.
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
Another Q: What was the input power set to?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1386992;image)
Dang it Todd, you're to sharp! You posted just about the same design I was just drawing. No need now. I do like this design.
Shell
-
...
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
Can you please re-post this great analysis, images and response regarding analysis method in "NASASpaceFlight.com Forum » General Discussion » New Physics for Space Technology » Resonant Cavity Space-Propulsion: ..." thread so that it does not get lost and can be referred to for future reference?
The dissipation only occurs at the interior surface. There is no dissipation in the inner volume.
Hence to minimize dissipaton in a given volume one has to minimize the surface/volume ratio.
A sphere is theoretically the volume that minimizes Surface/Volume ratio so it makes sense that a truncated sphere should have a higher Q than a truncated cone.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Comparison_of_surface_area_vs_volume_of_shapes.svg/450px-Comparison_of_surface_area_vs_volume_of_shapes.svg.png)
For a given volume, the object with the smallest surface area (and therefore with the smallest SA:V) is the sphere, a consequence of the isoperimetric inequality in 3 dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio
Also, for all these solids, the surface-area-to-volume ratio decreases with increasing volume, so the bigger the EM Drive (regardless of the shape, including a sphere), the better.
-
...
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
Can you please re-post this great analysis, images and response regarding analysis method in "NASASpaceFlight.com Forum » General Discussion » New Physics for Space Technology » Resonant Cavity Space-Propulsion: ..." thread so that it does not get lost and can be referred to for future reference?
A sphere is theoretically the volume that minimizes Surface/Volume ratio so it makes sense that a truncated sphere should have a higher Q than a truncated cone.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Comparison_of_surface_area_vs_volume_of_shapes.svg/450px-Comparison_of_surface_area_vs_volume_of_shapes.svg.png)
For a given volume, the object with the smallest surface area (and therefore with the smallest SA:V) is the sphere, a consequence of the isoperimetric inequality in 3 dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio
Also, for all these solids, the surface-area-to-volume ratio decreases with increasing volume, so the bigger the EM Drive (regardless of the shape, including a sphere), the better.
Yes, it true like they say bigger is better . . . but I'd be hard pressed to build a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz Drive Dr. Rodal. Although it intrigues me enough to think it might be in the cards sometime in the future and how I could do it.
Could I fit it into my Covair...? hmmm. Na, that's too silly.
Shell
PS: The reason I posted this is the need to keep our heads in a realistic mode and while flying cars might be in dreams we're far from the reality of it.
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it.
Is that what you are claiming with regards to the new NASA result, that's it's not a verified result?
-
Here are a few calcs based on the 88k Qu of my spherical end plate frustum based on copper construction.
Cu Rs ~8,000 uOhm at room temp & 2.45GHz Offered YBCO thin film at Rs 3uOhm at 77K (LN2) at 2.45GHz.
As Qu scales linear with Rs, the 8,000/3 = 2,667 should increase Qu by 2,667 or 88k to 2.35x10^8. As force scales with Q, the predicted 0.4N/kWrf increases to 1,067N/kWrf.
Instead of using LN2, using LHe cooling should drop the Rs 13x, which could increase force to 13,868N/kWrf.
Gotta love YBCO, KISS spherical end plate frustums & EmDrives.
-
...
Yes, it true like they say bigger is better . . . but I'd be hard pressed to build a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz Drive Dr. Rodal. Although it intrigues me enough to think it might be in the cards sometime in the future and how I could do it.
Could I fit it into my Covair...? hmmm. Na, that's too silly.
Shell
PS: The reason I posted this is the need to keep our heads in a realistic mode and while flying cars might be in dreams we're far from the reality of it.
Shell, is somebody working on to your knowledge, or has somebody proposed a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz ? Or is that a design that you have been working on secretly? :-X
I don't recall people discussing such a large EM Drive. Do you recall, however, about a year ago, a group from Canada, (I think they were in Alberta) discussing working with their local University on a very high power experiment using megawatts? I don't recall hearing anything back from them...
-
The reason I posted this is the need to keep our heads in a realistic mode and while flying cars might be in dreams we're far from the reality of it.
All that is required is the application of EmDrive Enginerring.
The relationships between mode, freq, Df, Qu, Pwr & Rs are known. YBCO thin films with Rs of 3uOhms at 2.45GHz at 77K are commercially available.
While most may not accept Roger's theory, the equations do work to build EmDrives & predict the 2 forces that are generated and have been measured by many.
I have 5 Cu & Al frustums of various design in fabrication or finished. My next 2 frustum builds will be YBCO coated variants of the Al spherical end plate frustum driven by 100W and 250W Rf amps with very tight freq tracking from lowest reflected power, highest static force generation and highest acceleration.
Time waits for no one.
-
...
Yes, it true like they say bigger is better . . . but I'd be hard pressed to build a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz Drive Dr. Rodal. Although it intrigues me enough to think it might be in the cards sometime in the future and how I could do it.
Could I fit it into my Covair...? hmmm. Na, that's too silly.
Shell
PS: The reason I posted this is the need to keep our heads in a realistic mode and while flying cars might be in dreams we're far from the reality of it.
Shell, is somebody working on to your knowledge, or has somebody proposed a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz ? Or is that a design that you have been working on secretly? :-X
I don't recall people discussing such a large EM Drive. Do you recall, however, about a year ago, a group from Canada, (I think they were in Alberta) discussing working with their local University on a very high power experiment using megawatts? I don't recall hearing anything back from them...
No. I'm not fully working on it just some thoughts on paper and if I knew of someone I would keep the confidentiality if I was asked to do so.
I've not heard much at all from the Canadians but my goodness it was a giant leap in about everything.
Best,
Shell
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
What is the type of solution method? Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna? Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
Great questions Dr. Rodal!
I have a couple others.
Is the antenna your using a optimized point dipole from FEKO to excite the fields? If it is then the levels might not be real world and could be almost a order of magnitude to high. If that's the case then maybe running it with a loop or helical antenna will provide better data.
Shell
Yes the source was a magnetic dipole. It would be nice if I could use a more complex antenna but it's not supported by the FEKO students version I am currently using. There are still limitations, but a little less than FEKO lite. Such an antenna shape needs a lot of triangles in the mesh.
Even with this source, each of the shown calculations tooked several hours to converge.
I can still compare the results with older simulations when using the same source and conditions.
-
...
Yes, it true like they say bigger is better . . . but I'd be hard pressed to build a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz Drive Dr. Rodal. Although it intrigues me enough to think it might be in the cards sometime in the future and how I could do it.
Could I fit it into my Covair...? hmmm. Na, that's too silly.
Shell
PS: The reason I posted this is the need to keep our heads in a realistic mode and while flying cars might be in dreams we're far from the reality of it.
Shell, is somebody working on to your knowledge, or has somebody proposed a ~3 foot large base diameter ~900MHz ? Or is that a design that you have been working on secretly? :-X
I don't recall people discussing such a large EM Drive. Do you recall, however, about a year ago, a group from Canada, (I think they were in Alberta) discussing working with their local University on a very high power experiment using megawatts? I don't recall hearing anything back from them...
I brought up the 900 MHz cavity as an idea to play with in AutoCAD (I'm currently taking courses to become a draftsman). To my knowledge, no one is actually building one yet; I'm just trying to learn as I go. :)
-
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is your RF input power?
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1386800;image)
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
What is the type of solution method? Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna? Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
Great questions Dr. Rodal!
I have a couple others.
Is the antenna your using a optimized point dipole from FEKO to excite the fields? If it is then the levels might not be real world and could be almost a order of magnitude to high. If that's the case then maybe running it with a loop or helical antenna will provide better data.
Shell
Yes the source was a magnetic dipole. It would be nice if I could use a more complex antenna but it's not supported by the FEKO students version I am currently using. There are still limitations, but a little less than FEKO lite. Such an antenna shape needs a lot of triangles in the mesh.
Even with this source, each of the shown calculations tooked several hours to converge.
I can still compare the results with older simulations when using the same source and conditions.
meep also has a magnetic dipole and when Q's on the orders of 100 of millions arise by using it, it makes the sims we see come under question. Although it takes more time to do a real antenna and you're limited by the mesh count it will be more realistic.
Shell
-
Monomorphic , did you calculate Q values for these ...would you tell us what you came up with THNX FL
-
Monomorphic , did you calculate Q values for these ...would you tell us what you came up with THNX FL
I have not had the time to run the necessary sweep to calculate the Q for all three of these cavities.
-
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is your RF input power?
No power scaling
This is the default setting. If this option is selected, FEKO will calculate the results using the specified source magnitudes.
Source magnitude is shown in the pic I have posted.
-
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What is your RF input power?
No power scaling
This is the default setting. If this option is selected, FEKO will calculate the results using the specified source magnitudes.
Source magnitude is shown in the pic I have posted.
Okay thanks. Are you doing sweeps using the continuous interpolated range or linearly spaced discrete points?
Have you had problems with the solutions converging using interpolated?
And what are your solver settings? ;D
-
Monomorphic , did you calculate Q values for these ...would you tell us what you came up with THNX FL
Roger calculated the Qu of my 2.45GHz, TE013, spherical end plate frustum at ~88k. He also told me the Qu of his 3.85GHz, TE013, sphetical end plate Flight Thruster was ~60k as measured.
-
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
The 2 parabola geometry looks very promising. Unfortunately I set FEKO to run a detailed sweep but my computer froze up so I lost all of that data. I will run again later, but here is a rough image.
-
With all the prior talk of gravity on this thread, this new paper maybe of interest.
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge \break together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These~ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely~on~the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional `dark' gravitational force describing the `elastic' response due to the entropy displacement.
We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a0=cH0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark~matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
-
With all the prior talk of gravity on this thread, this new paper maybe of interest.
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
Recent theoretical progress indicates that spacetime and gravity emerge \break together from the entanglement structure of an underlying microscopic theory. These~ideas are best understood in Anti-de Sitter space, where they rely~on~the area law for entanglement entropy. The extension to de Sitter space requires taking into account the entropy and temperature associated with the cosmological horizon. Using insights from string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory we argue that the positive dark energy leads to a thermal volume law contribution to the entropy that overtakes the area law precisely at the cosmological horizon. Due to the competition between area and volume law entanglement the microscopic de Sitter states do not thermalise at sub-Hubble scales: they exhibit memory effects in the form of an entropy displacement caused by matter. The emergent laws of gravity contain an additional `dark' gravitational force describing the `elastic' response due to the entropy displacement.
We derive an estimate of the strength of this extra force in terms of the baryonic mass, Newton's constant and the Hubble acceleration scale a0=cH0, and provide evidence for the fact that this additional `dark gravity~force' explains the observed phenomena in galaxies and clusters currently attributed to dark~matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Erik_Verlinde.27s_theory
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-leaked-nasa-paper-reveals-star-trek-microwave-thruster-does-work-1590244#
Check that video of moving EmDrive. The one in the middle. That is Dr.White right? I did not see that video yet.
As Galileo once said: "and yet it moves".
You are being quoted in the IBTimes article you are responding to, in the above post, by the article's author (Mary-Ann Russon) as follows:
The paper was leaked onto the Nasa Spaceflight enthusiast forum on Saturday 5 November by an Australian EmDrive fan called Phil Wilson, who goes by the username "The Traveller". ....For his part, Wilson says that he chose to release the data onto the Nasa Spaceflight forum because he didn't believe AIAA intends to actually publish the paper.
Are you being quoted accurately by this IBTimes article's author? If so, what could possibly make you think that AIAA did not intend to publish NASA's paper? ???
-
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
The 2 parabola geometry looks very promising. Unfortunately I set FEKO to run a detailed sweep but my computer froze up so I lost all of that data. I will run again later, but here is a rough image.
225 MV/m? Woohoo! When you re-post, please include all the parameters, like Cu?, input power W?, and whatever else you can to define the diagram. Could you also show the "B" or "H" field values not just E field?
As I said earlier, it would be great to compare apples to apples between the parabola, sphere and frustum, in the same material, same mode with the same antenna positioning. I think we would all learn something (maybe?) from this.
Thanks!
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
-
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Oh boy, my favorite...
:-\
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
-
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Oh boy, my favorite...
:-\
Well, when you see they start using images of jet engines as illustration for the EM drive, you know that the article is no longer concerned about telling the truth...
Sensational news and images... that's all what matters...apparently... :-\
*Disappointed I am, in popular science journalism*
-
Are you being quoted accurately by this IBTimes article's author? If so, what could possibly make you think that AIAA did not intend to publish NASA's paper? ???
This saga is not yet completed.
Read Dave's comments.
-
Good news.
Despite my health issues, I'm moving my workshop from home into a 10m x 10m space in a friends new warehouse as I need more space to assemble, test and ship my S band 0.1N thrusters starting mid 2017.
Plus it will need more space to test the S band YBCO LN2 cooled thrusters I have approved construction of.
Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.
-
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
The 2 parabola geometry looks very promising. Unfortunately I set FEKO to run a detailed sweep but my computer froze up so I lost all of that data. I will run again later, but here is a rough image.
While you are modeling conic sections you might as well try to fit in an ellipse. Seems there are a number of possible fitments.
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
That seems a rather drastic outcome even for such irresponsible actions.
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
<snip>
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
That seems a rather drastic outcome even for such irresponsible actions.
It'll be a heyday for the conspiracy theorists.
"It works!
It's been tested!
It's been documented!
They won't publish!
It's being suppressed!"
Sigh.
-
Good news.
Despite my health issues, I'm moving my workshop from home into a 10m x 10m space in a friends new warehouse as I need more space to assemble, test and ship my S band 0.1N thrusters starting mid 2017.
Plus it will need more space to test the S band YBCO LN2 cooled thrusters I have approved construction of.
Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.
Will you make an YBCO cavity independently?
-
Good news.
Despite my health issues, I'm moving my workshop from home into a 10m x 10m space in a friends new warehouse as I need more space to assemble, test and ship my S band 0.1N thrusters starting mid 2017.
Plus it will need more space to test the S band YBCO LN2 cooled thrusters I have approved construction of.
Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.
Will you make an YBCO cavity independently?
Yes.
-
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
The 2 parabola geometry looks very promising. Unfortunately I set FEKO to run a detailed sweep but my computer froze up so I lost all of that data. I will run again later, but here is a rough image.
225 MV/m? Woohoo! When you re-post, please include all the parameters, like Cu?, input power W?, and whatever else you can to define the diagram. Could you also show the "B" or "H" field values not just E field?
As I said earlier, it would be great to compare apples to apples between the parabola, sphere and frustum, in the same material, same mode with the same antenna positioning. I think we would all learn something (maybe?) from this.
Thanks!
And perhaps as a baseline the above models with flat base plates to compare with X-Ray's breakthrough!!
X-Ray and Monomorphic: Very nice work!! Congratulations!! :D
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.
I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.
IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.
Off my Soap Box,
Shell
-
Good news.
Despite my health issues, I'm moving my workshop from home into a 10m x 10m space in a friends new warehouse as I need more space to assemble, test and ship my S band 0.1N thrusters starting mid 2017.
Plus it will need more space to test the S band YBCO LN2 cooled thrusters I have approved construction of.
Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.
Will you make an YBCO cavity independently?
Yes.
Due to the lack of power of the signal source which I ordered, we can not drive the power amplifier, the test has been suspended. Next week I will be sure to start the test.
-
Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).
-
There's no justification for releasing this paper early.
-
To all,
I've build 2 labs and I'm currently doing my 3rd. I've built 3 different frustums and currently on my 4th. Each step has been to refine my data, narrow the error and enhance the thrust anomaly. You all have been following me for the last 1-1/2 years and watched and even commented on the advances and failures. This last effort will be able to provide very clear and concise testing data. This was done without embracing theory, other than Maxwell's and a few others. I've seen anomalous thrusts without anything other than the copper and microwaves, I've seen anomalous thrusts with dielectrics, I've seen anomalous thrusts with a kitchen sink PZT approach.
The first powered on pretest last year (December) I exceeded the load cell in my small digital scale in a powered jerk action and delightfully turned antennas and magnetrons into matchsticks. Before the smoke cleared I interestingly a saw a large impulse from the system before failure. This is truly where it started. This was my "that's interesting" moment.
This last build, in a new lab and with a new device, when I'm done I'll have no qualms of it passing my peer reviews in independent testings and labs, if it shows real thrusts. I know it needs to be done and that it is a step in the process. If I find out what I've been seeing is a build or test bed error, I truly win and can go back to sitting in my hot tub more than I do now and fully retire. If it's truly a propulsion-less device, we all win big time and the hot tub time will have to wait.
There is a lot of critical debate going on and it's a good thing, there is nothing wrong with it. It's driven me to spend thousands of hours, refining the builds and the test stands. I've been building things for over 50 years, building them to work and understanding why they work has been the hallmark of my life. This is no different.
Oh, one other thing. If you think me, 67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!
My Very Best,
Shell
Thank You Shell,
Byron said it, truth is beauty and beauty truth. Am so glad you appreciate the amateur theory as well, it is hard won sometimes and quite ridiculous to the well educated. Engineering is all about what actually works, we admire your determination and have strong faith in its potential.
Good luck with matters political today and remember that your test results are eagerly anticipated. Thank heaven for this forum and long may it live, JMN..
-
Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).
Being a guitarist and luthier, I love it! ;D However, there is a little more method to my madness. The parabolas share the same focal point and all reflections maximize the forward or reverse momentum. Not to mention I could roast some marshmallows at the focus with sunlight as a source too. It's multi-functional! 8)
-
Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).
Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard. I've had to try to stay with what is easy to build and cost effective, maybe if more funds come around I'll do it and have it made, although it's still easier to do with a small flat top.
Shell
-
Thanks, Shell, thanks Aero! No doubt such a complex shape would be quite pricey. At least now I know my thinking wasn't completely crazy. : ) Best to the both of you!! FL
-
Hopefully the rotary rig will be in a later paper? "The Smoking Gun"
Besides the RPM numbers (r per hour!) do you know if there is a calculation of force or acceleration from the rotary rig? I guess it would need some sort of calibration force to calculate.
All you need is to know the moment of inertia of the rotating part and its angular acceleration rate (which can be done with simple video frame timing). Those two terms allow you to calculate the torque. The torque divided by the applied radius to give you force. Profile drag and bearing self-motoring torques are confounding factors that need to be characterized and subtracted out.
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.
I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.
IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.
Off my Soap Box,
Shell
I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.
I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.
IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.
Off my Soap Box,
Shell
I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.
That is so very true on leaks, sad but true.
You can be sure I'm not going to shutter my doors on this project. Yes conformal coatings will keep issues with a high Q cavity a minimum by keeping oxidation away and issues with internal arcing. Anyone doubt this watch a CD in a microwave... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKd92oU9ivs
-
BTW Shell, thanks ever so much for your report. Any idea +/- you might be conclusively finished with your work? FL
-
BTW Shell, thanks ever so much for your report. Any idea +/- you might be conclusively finished with your work? FL
You welcome FL.
No, I don't have a set date. I'm pushing very hard to get the structure up before the snow flies up here in the high Rockies, much depends on that, thank goodness we have had good weather. I have to still build the prefab, insulate, provide power, heat, and cooling. Then stock it inside. The list is long. Maybe a very early or late spring. If and only if I can get one of my old senior electronic techs (who is an top notch ET) who retired to help, it could be sooner. I told him I'd feed him and let him lick 9 volt batteries if it helped. :P
Shell
-
Really simple
-
Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.
I am pointing this out, because you seem to have difficulty with the difference between fact and speculation, and recent articles which seem to have drawn their sources from this site should make clear the importance of keeping these distinct here. Dave did not have any "news" about EW, only his prediction of the future. His disclaimer is below:
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
-
Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard. I've had to try to stay with what is easy to build and cost effective, maybe if more funds come around I'll do it and have it made, although it's still easier to do with a small flat top.
True, but 3d printing (or lost wax casting or CNC machining if the graphite PLA doesn't work out) would take much of the difficulty out of a dual parabola design. I for one really like the way Monomorphic's FEKO runs look!
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
And while I appreciate that the early release of the NASA paper probably isn't ideal, I seriously doubt that the genie can be put back in the bottle at this point. Between the DIY advice and theories developed on this forum, I'm firmly of the opinion that ANY team with sufficient funding and technical expertise could build a working EM drive.
It's just a matter of time now.
And engineering...
And money...
-
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-leaked-nasa-paper-reveals-star-trek-microwave-thruster-does-work-1590244#
Check that video of moving EmDrive. The one in the middle. That is Dr.White right? I did not see that video yet.
As Galileo once said: "and yet it moves".
You are being quoted in the IBTimes article you are responding to, in the above post, by the article's author (Mary-Ann Russon) as follows:
The paper was leaked onto the Nasa Spaceflight enthusiast forum on Saturday 5 November by an Australian EmDrive fan called Phil Wilson, who goes by the username "The Traveller". ....For his part, Wilson says that he chose to release the data onto the Nasa Spaceflight forum because he didn't believe AIAA intends to actually publish the paper.
Are you being quoted accurately by this IBTimes article's author? If so, what could possibly make you think that AIAA did not intend to publish NASA's paper? ???
After reading the leaked paper today I realized it does have a lot of new information that was not disclosed or discussed last year. I acknowledge now it does look like the peer reviewed paper everyone has discussed. I also think it was wrong and damaging to the EW people for the paper to be released before publication. That act by itself may be sufficient grounds for AIAA to now refuse to publish it.
I stand by my earlier comments that there is no conclusive proof an em-drive thrust exists. I don't want to detail the problems I saw in this paper because it is still embargoed pending publication. The authors deserve a lot of credit for their careful experimental work and for their well written paper. This kind of research needs to be done and they did good work. It is unfortunate their hard work has been betrayed this way.
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.
I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.
IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.
Off my Soap Box,
Shell
I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.
Hopefully the internet will be distracted by president Trump rather than irresponsible leaks of EM drive papers.
-
Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).
Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard.
...
Building it may not be very hard if you can find the right copper lamp or vase. Some shapes come rather close to what we need (some examples in the attached pictures). I already bought some copper bowls for a test cavity.
Peter
-
Building it may not be very hard if you can find the right copper lamp or vase. Some shapes come rather close to what we need (some examples in the attached pictures). I already bought some copper bowls for a test cavity.
Peter
Or if you're doing a build with spherical endplates, Why not go with parabolic dish antennas? RF port already included.
Minor end plate: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-58-ghz-29-dbi-solid-parabolic-dish-antenna
Major end plate: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-24-ghz-22-dbi-dual-x-polarized-dual-feed-parabolic-dish-antenna-n-female-connector#
-
Hopefully the internet will be distracted by president Trump rather than irresponsible leaks of EM drive papers.
Not really. People like me use the paper to withdraw from the gruesome reality. :o
-
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
PEC. Coudn't belefe therefor I used Copper, thickness 1mm
How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
Thanks
1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation, magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD
4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.
5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. ::)
You should redo the parabola in all Cu, instead of the SS base plate, to compare apples to apples. It would also be good to see the Brady frustum with the same input conditions and no dielectric.
The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.
Another Q: What was the input power set to?
Todd you asked for comparison of the 3 different shapes using Copper only, same source (magnetic dipole) and equal conditions for the simulations.
Mode is TE012 in the Brady cone without dielectric. For the half shere it depends on defilition either TE012 or TE021. ???
In the parabolic cavity the field pattern should be descripted as TE021.
Please note that the Resonant frequencies are not equal, to apply this I would need a few days. Since omega is involved in your set of equations I hope its not strictly needed to optimize all to the same frequency.
-
Interesting curves, X-RaY. The area under the curve of power vs. time is Energy. What is the area under the power curve when plotted vs. frequency?
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
I ran a quick HFSS eigenmode sim on it without the loop and the resonant frequency seems to correlate very well. I'm not sure what mode you had ~ 2GHz, the TE111 should be the first one. Maybe an effect of the antenna.
Hope this helps
Kurt
[edit: each field plot is normalized to the same scale]
-
Interesting curves, X-RaY. The area under the curve of power vs. time is Energy. What is the area under the power curve when plotted vs. frequency?
The integral of the function (the area below the curve) would be in J.s-2 (joules per second squared) which would be some sort of "energy acceleration unit" (of no meaning).
-
Interesting curves, X-RaY. The area under the curve of power vs. time is Energy. What is the area under the power curve when plotted vs. frequency?
The integral of the function (the area below the curve) would be in J.s-2 (joules per second squared) which would be some sort of "energy acceleration unit" (of no meaning).
The integral of Power over a frequency range, has units of Power times frequency, or equivalently, Power per unit time (Watt/second). Since Power is force times velocity, Power per unit time has units of Force*acceleration or, equivalently, velocity times force per unit time.
Force per unit time is called the yank
(http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4484221/slides/slide_15.jpg)
So, equivalently, it has units of yank times velocity or units of force times acceleration, or mass times acceleration squared or units of mass times jerk times velocity. ;)
The involvement of the force times the acceleration, or the yank times velocity in these equations makes sense because mechanical resonance is a dynamic phenomenon governed by inertia, stiffness and damping.
(or in an electromagnetic circuit, by capacitance, inductance and resistance).
Momentum equals mass times velocity!
Force equals mass times acceleration!
Yank equals mass times jerk!
Tug equals mass times snap!
Snatch equals mass times crackle!
Shake equals mass times pop!!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
I ran a quick HFSS eigenmode sim on it without the loop and the resonant frequency seems to correlate very well. I'm not sure what mode you had ~ 2GHz, the TE111 should be the first one. Maybe an effect of the antenna.
Hope this helps
Kurt
[edit: each field plot is normalized to the same scale]
There seems to be a false mode notation, presented in your file.
The upper is called TE112, the lower one is TE211
regarding standard notation: TXmnp - in cylindical cavities "p" is the number of half waves in axial direktion.
EDIT
However, nice work! :)
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
I ran a quick HFSS eigenmode sim on it without the loop and the resonant frequency seems to correlate very well. I'm not sure what mode you had ~ 2GHz, the TE111 should be the first one. Maybe an effect of the antenna.
Hope this helps
Kurt
[edit: each field plot is normalized to the same scale]
It surely helps, Kurt. Thanks!
Indeed I also measured a resonance at 3.21 GHz (and at 3.24, 3.76 and 3.93 GHz).
You would expect the TE111 to be little excited, don't you? As the field of the coupling loop is perpendicular to that of this mode. TM011, for example, should be much stronger.
Peter
-
There seems to be a false mode notation, presented in your file.
The upper is called TE112, the lower one is TE211
regarding standard notation: TXmnp - in cylindical cavities "p" is the number of half waves in axial direktion.
EDIT
However, nice work! :)
Ahh thank you. A bit hasty on the labeling...
And no problem Peter!
If you wanted the coupling loop to work better for the TE111 I think you'd want it at half of the cylinder height where the H field is max.
Are you going for any mode in particular?
Also what kind of power source are you planning to use for your torsion balance test?
(sorry I may have missed some of your previous posts)
-
If you wanted the coupling loop to work better for the TE111 I think you'd want it at half of the cylinder height where the H field is max.
Are you going for any mode in particular?
Also what kind of power source are you planning to use for your torsion balance test?
(sorry I may have missed some of your previous posts)
For this test I was not going for any particular mode. I want to study the effect of the placement and orientation of the coupling loop first.
I plan to use a low power (4 - 10 W) amplifier because I want to feed it with a battery and do not want too much heat generation. At 4 W, I can expect only something like 5 micronewton, which should be measurable with my torsion balance (resolution ~0.2 µN) but a little more (10-20 µM) would be nicer.
Peter
-
Btw, I posted a discussion of the leaked paper by White et al. on https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1608047#msg1608047
-
aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :
all articles not even 24hr old
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm
http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm
https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml
http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html
A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...
Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil. ;)
I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.
Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.
I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.
I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.
IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.
Off my Soap Box,
Shell
I have a hard time fathoming any government agency would behave that way if their major concern was bad press. Seems to be they would simply feed the bad press flames even more. first they submit and then they retract AFTER going through months of peer review and being accepted for submission? That said I am still hopeful the paper will be released officially as previously stated. After having read the leak (Sorry I am like a man in a desert eagerly awaiting any solid research on this line of technology), if there is anything missing it looks like they included raw data. where as the leak only has graphs. I can see how that would be valuable for lots of interesting analysis.
Lastly, while I don't condone the leak. I did expect it. This topic has built up way too much inertia. It's like new music from a popular artist. The only way to have avoided a leak would have been to have released the paper the minute it cleared peer review. Especially if it is true that Open access option was paid for.
-
Interesting curves, X-RaY. The area under the curve of power vs. time is Energy. What is the area under the power curve when plotted vs. frequency?
The integral of the function (the area below the curve) would be in J.s-2 (joules per second squared) which would be some sort of "energy acceleration unit" (of no meaning).
The integral of Power over a frequency range, has units of Power times frequency, or equivalently, Power per unit time (Watt/second). Since Power is force times velocity, Power per unit time has units of Force*acceleration or, equivalently, velocity times force per unit time.
Force per unit time is called the yank
(http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4484221/slides/slide_15.jpg)
So, equivalently, it has units of yank times velocity or units of force times acceleration, or mass times acceleration squared or units of mass times jerk times velocity. ;)
The involvement of the force times the acceleration, or the yank times velocity in these equations makes sense because mechanical resonance is a dynamic phenomenon governed by inertia, stiffness and damping.
(or in an electromagnetic circuit, by capacitance, inductance and resistance).
Momentum equals mass times velocity!
Force equals mass times acceleration!
Yank equals mass times jerk!
Tug equals mass times snap!
Snatch equals mass times crackle!
Shake equals mass times pop!!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html
can I just say i want to nominate the "yank" as a standard scientific unit. ' cause that'd be cool... :)
the instruments read 400 kilo-yanks!
-
How many jerks in a Kyank?
Oh, I see! Depends on tug/snap!
-
How many jerks in a Kyank?
Oh, I see! Depends on tug/snap!
There are currently six named derivatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_(physics)) of position vectors with respect to time. :)
-
How many jerks in a Kyank?
Oh, I see! Depends on tug/snap!
There are currently six named derivatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_(physics)) of position vectors with respect to time. :)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Operation_Skyfall_2015_150319-F-GV347-034.jpg/1280px-Operation_Skyfall_2015_150319-F-GV347-034.jpg)
snap, crackle and pop: nose art on a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (WWII)
<<The name "pop", along with "snap" (also referred to as jounce) and "crackle" are somewhat facetious terms for the fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position, being a reference to Snap, Crackle, and Pop. >>
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
I ran a quick HFSS eigenmode sim on it without the loop and the resonant frequency seems to correlate very well. I'm not sure what mode you had ~ 2GHz, the TE111 should be the first one. Maybe an effect of the antenna.
Hope this helps
Kurt
[edit: each field plot is normalized to the same scale]
Hi Kurt,
Can you please also run a simulation 3-4 GHz? It will be interesting to identify more modes. Is there a TE011?
3.249 GHz TM012?
3.381 GHz
3.747 GHz TM110? Q=12k
3.938 GHz TM111? Q=20k
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center axis (2/3rd the way up) things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Monomorphic, you truly rock. Perfect advice, I concur.
Shell
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
Peter,
It doesn't matter the small effect of the coax, you can adjust for that. What matters is the balanced symmetry of field interactions and "locking" in a TE mode.
Shell
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
What is the impulse response of your antenna? In other words, if you apply a very short current pulse (ns), what does the ringing feedback signal look like? Is it a nice uniform sine wave at the resonant frequency of the cavity, or is there harmonic distortion from overlapping modes?
Just curious. I was thinking about doing exactly what you have done, just to see what comes out and how I could design more powerful, ruggedized driving circuit to power it. I'm looking for oscillograms, before I start making some of my own. :)
-
What is the impulse response of your antenna? In other words, if you apply a very short current pulse (ns), what does the ringing feedback signal look like? Is it a nice uniform sine wave at the resonant frequency of the cavity, or is there harmonic distortion from overlapping modes?
Just curious. I was thinking about doing exactly what you have done, just to see what comes out and how I could design more powerful, ruggedized driving circuit to power it. I'm looking for oscillograms, before I start making some of my own. :)
I have not performed such a measurement. I have to see whether I can get access to the necessary equipment for that. The measurement I have described was just reflection as a function of frequency with a network analyzer.
-
My first test cavity (cylinder), measured with a network analyzer (Agilent E8364B). Length = 130 mm, r = 49 mm. Coupling loop, diameter 15 mm, at 1/4 of length (32.5 mm), 2 mm silvered copper wire.
Aim was to see what Q can be reached with untreated (unpolished) copper pipe and plates and this coupling (and to get some experience with copper soldering). And whether I can identify the modes (not yet).
In the picture 2-3 GHz, 6 peaks can be seen:
2.013 GHz Q= low
2.136 GHz Q=~600
2.358 GHz Q=~23k
2.381 GHz Q=low
2.642 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
2.917 GHz Q= not calculated (order 100-1000)
Cheers,
Peter
I ran a quick HFSS eigenmode sim on it without the loop and the resonant frequency seems to correlate very well. I'm not sure what mode you had ~ 2GHz, the TE111 should be the first one. Maybe an effect of the antenna.
Hope this helps
Kurt
[edit: each field plot is normalized to the same scale]
Hi Kurt,
Can you please also run a simulation 3-4 GHz? It will be interesting to identify more modes. Is there a TE011?
3.249 GHz TM012?
3.381 GHz
3.747 GHz TM110? Q=12k
3.938 GHz TM111? Q=20k
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
Sure!
Here are the next four modes:
3.31E+09 3.78E+09 3.79E+09 3.91E+09
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
I was unable to open the PDF so I am unsure just what you were responding to. That said on the face of it your statement is false, because heat is a measure of the (more or less randomized) momentum of a group of involved atoms and molecules.
When dealing with everyday classical masses, velocities and impact reactions, the resulting change in temperature is often insignificant, that does not mean that it does not exist.
Heat itself is just a specialized term for a type of momentum.
When dealing with everyday objects and classical everyday velocities, most of the transfer of momentum is limited to a sum of the classical velocities of the after impact objects. As impact velocity increases so does the amount of the initial momentum that results in measurable "heat" and a comparable reduction in the resulting classical velocities.
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
I was unable to open the PDF so I am unsure just what you were responding to. That said on the face of it your statement is false, because heat is a measure of the (more or less randomized) momentum of a group of involved atoms and molecules.
Wrong. Heat is a randomized motion with an average momentum of zero. Heat does not carry, nor transfer momentum.
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
Added some sketch to the image.
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
I was unable to open the PDF so I am unsure just what you were responding to. That said on the face of it your statement is false, because heat is a measure of the (more or less randomized) momentum of a group of involved atoms and molecules.
Wrong. Heat is a randomized motion with an average momentum of zero. Heat does not carry, nor transfer momentum.
It is quite easy to say "Wrong, it doesn't work that way," but doing so does not serve our purpose of putting the concept to bed, witness all the re-occurrence of this or very similar concepts on this thread. Gs, I suggest that you post your document, not a link to a file, on a new thread here on the New Physics sub-forum http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=73.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=73.0) and that the responders explain in detail just exactly how your proposed concept behaves and fails.
I too, believe it fails in the classic Newtonian physics case where the center of mass and the center of momentum are the same point, but we are fortunate that there is more to modern physics than Newton. Maybe it doesn't always fail? To find for sure, go ahead and post a new thread to allow unobstructed discussion of the concept. JMO
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
I was unable to open the PDF so I am unsure just what you were responding to. That said on the face of it your statement is false, because heat is a measure of the (more or less randomized) momentum of a group of involved atoms and molecules.
Wrong. Heat is a randomized motion with an average momentum of zero. Heat does not carry, nor transfer momentum.
As I said I could not open the linked PDF, so my comments are only to the issue of whether the momentum associated with the collision of two objects, is at least partly converted to thermal energy...
Take a look at the last analysis of the Pioneer Anomoly. Do a search on Pioneer Anomoly Solved. Yes they are talking about radiant heat, but that radiant heat began as randomized momentum...
The only way you could exclude the randomized motion associated with heat from momentum and even discussions of CoM is if you could somehow argue that thermal energy (heat) and associated randomized motion represents a closed system.
Strike a metal plate several times with a hammer and you will find that both the metal plate and hammer heat up. Since the only interaction between the two is the impact transferring momentum, a portion of the kinetic energy (momentum) is converted to thermal energy.
Objects in the real world are Not perfect ridged bodies. Since they are not perfect any time two objects impact one another transferring momentum, a portion of the momentum from the impact is randomized as heat.
Under most everyday classical situations it is a small amount. Think! A meteorite from the cold of space burns up passing through the atmosphere, its momentum converted to heat as it collides with the atmosphere. The momentum associated with the transfer of momentum between the meteorite and atmosphere, wind up randomized as heat, in a spectacular display we call shooting stars...
Only when dealing with ideal perfectly ridged bodies, or perhaps low velocity classical collisions, can no part of the initial momentum wind up being randomized has heat.
BTW for a long time now I have thought the CoM issue that comes up repeatedly, and is important to the EmDrive discussion, really ends as a CoE balance. There are many ways that electrical/electromagnetic energy can be used to generate kinetic energy/momentum.., and momentum can then be used to generate both heat and electrical/electromagnetic energy. As long as the energy balances (CoE is satisfied) CoM is conserved.
-
Strike a metal plate several times with a hammer and you will find that both the metal plate and hammer heat up. Since the only interaction between the two is the impact transferring momentum, a portion of the kinetic energy (momentum) is converted to thermal energy.
What do you means by Kinetic energy (momentum) ?
It sounds to me like writing acceleration(mass)
Kinetic energy and momentum are very different.
Kinetic energy is easily converted into thermal energy by any impact.
Momentum is never in GR. The General relativity is constructed by this rule (and some others) Momentum is conserved, even in perfect inelastic collision.
Momentum converted into heat needs totally new physics.
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
Added some sketch to the image.
I thought the circumference of a loop antenna should ideally be equal to wavelength.
-
Really simple
No, net momentum is conserved at each collision. It's not 'lost' as heat. It's always balanced. Sorry. :(
I was unable to open the PDF so I am unsure just what you were responding to. That said on the face of it your statement is false, because heat is a measure of the (more or less randomized) momentum of a group of involved atoms and molecules.
Wrong. Heat is a randomized motion with an average momentum of zero. Heat does not carry, nor transfer momentum.
On the other hand, let's consider that the lion share of EM Drive experiments have been conducted at ambient pressure in air.
Comparison of different transport phenomena
Physical Phenomenon Equation Transported quantity
Heat conduction Fourier's Law Energy
Viscous Fluid Flow Newtonian Fluid Momentum
Molecular Diffusion Fick's law Mass
All forms of convective heat transfer involve the transport of both heat and momentum. Both Forced and Natural convection involve the Prandtl number and hence they involve momentum transfer. This is a result of the fluid dynamics, which is responsible for the transport of momentum.
Forced convection heat transfer in a fluid involves the transport of both momentum and heat, involving Nusselt number (the ratio of convective to conductive heat transfer across (normal to) the boundary), Reynolds number (ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces), and Prandtl numbers (the ratio of momentum diffusivity to thermal diffusivity.) .
(http://img.bhs4.com/08/1/0818828c07de06b705a7152674727d7df11d097a_large.jpg)
(http://hmf.enseeiht.fr/travaux/CD9900/travaux/optmfn/gpfmho/99-00/grp4/prandtl.gif)
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/forcedconvection-150421091454-conversion-gate01/95/forced-convection-12-638.jpg?cb=1429608010)
(http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7515678/slides/slide_11.jpg)
(http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~joergs/finpr.jpg)
For air at ambient pressure, the Prandtl number is close to 1, and hence the thermal and viscous boundary layers are about the same size (Reynolds analogy). This means that for air at ambient pressure, the diffusion of momentum is the same order of magnitude as thermal diffusion.
Natural or free convection is a function of Grashof (the ratio of the buoyancy to viscous force acting on a fluid) and Prandtl numbers (the ratio of momentum diffusivity to thermal diffusivity.)
Any experiment performed in air, particularly at ambient pressure, involves some form of convective heat transfer, as long as there is a temperature gradient involved. Therefore, experiments performed in air with a microwave heater: the EM Drive, particularly at ambient pressure, involve the transfer of momentum, and are all suspect.
The only research experimenters that have reported EM Drive experiments in a vacuum chamber have been NASA and TU Dresden, both of them obtaining orders of magnitude smaller force/InputPower than experimenters performing experiments at ambient pressure.
It is noteworthy, and very disappointing that the inventor, Shawyer, who has been working on this for decades, has failed to this date to report a single experiment performed in a vacuum chamber.
None of these experimenters, to my recollection, have reported computational fluid dynamics to model convection heat transfer in their experiments.
-
I thought the circumference of a loop antenna should ideally be equal to wavelength.
The Eagleworks guys use much smaller loops: 13.5 mm (circumference ~42 mm ) for 1.94 GHz. Wavelength ~155 mm, so a little bigger than 1/4 lambda.
-
Strike a metal plate several times with a hammer and you will find that both the metal plate and hammer heat up. Since the only interaction between the two is the impact transferring momentum, a portion of the kinetic energy (momentum) is converted to thermal energy.
What do you means by Kinetic energy (momentum) ?
It sounds to me like writing acceleration(mass)
Kinetic energy and momentum are very different.
Kinetic energy is easily converted into thermal energy by any impact.
Momentum is never in GR. The General relativity is constructed by this rule (and some others) Momentum is conserved, even in perfect inelastic collision.
Momentum converted into heat needs totally new physics.
Momentum as it is being defined in much of this discussion is from a fixed classical Newtonian framework, which results in p=mv. Looking at momentum relativistically the formula becomes far more complex. What that means is that the formula p=mv is an approximation that works for classical low velocity everyday situations.
Even the everyday formula for kinetic energy K= 0.5mv^2 undergoes changes when dealing with relativistic conditions, so it to is a useful approximation...
To answer the question you began with, "What do you means by Kinetic energy (momentum) ?. In the larger context "momentum" is a specialized subset of the "kinetic energy" of an object. Both of them are dependent on the motion of mass, one in a more limited sense than the other.
A question to consider might be, Can the vibrational motion of an atom within a larger composite object be described as momentum? Classically no, but fundamentally yes.
My point was and remains that heat, when speaking of massive objects, objects composed of mass.., atoms whether solid or fluid.., is a form of the randomized momentum of the individual component parts, atoms/molecules.
General relativity is not dependent on momentum or how we define it, though the momentum of a massive object can affect how its gravitational field propagates, relative to another frame of reference. General relativity is a geometric description of the tidal effects of gravity. It is not the cause of gravity or its tidal effects.
Most of what we think of as the laws of physics today are rooted in a classical Newtonian frame of reference with some limited relativistic adaptation, mostly from observations conducted in particle accelerators.., and how we imagine they scale relativistically, based on the models and theory we use to interpret and describe that portion of the universe and physics that lies beyond our ability to directly observe and measure.
When you speak of momentum as defined classically being conserved even in inelastic colisions, and that heat and momentum are different and unrelated observables, you are expressing model and theory based conclusions.
When I state that heat is a specialized form of momentum, I am changing the scale of observation from a macroscopic context of objects, to a more fundamental scale of the component parts, atoms and molecules of the larger object.
Again the only reason I belabor this issue, is because I believe that the discussion of CoM and CoE are important to the larger discussion of the EmDrive, and that so far it seems to me that most of the CoM debate has been centered on a classical Newtonian interpretation, neglecting the fact that Momentum can originate with Energy and in turn be used to generate Energy. Leaving the major issue one of CoE, rather than CoM from a classical context.
An example might be that no one would question that an electric motor can use electricity, to generate electromagnetic fields, which in turn generate angular momentum.... Because we understand or believe we understand how that works. In the case of an EmDrive, the argument continues to revert to a classical Newtonian interpretation, asking what is it pushing off of.., because we don't understand how microwaves in a sealed box could make the box move.
If the box, the EmDrive does move, which I believe will be confirmed, it may require nothing more than a reinterpretation of our understanding of the laws of physics, as we move beyond the classical Newtonian environment.., even more likely something as simple as coming to recognized an interaction between a resonant EM field and the current flow in the frustum walls and associated EM field.
The over unity issues raised relative to constant acceleration, really should wait until constant acceleration has been proven and then what affect even low end relativistic velocities in space, have on a solid mass.
-
To answer the question you began with, "What do you means by Kinetic energy (momentum) ?. In the larger context "momentum" is a specialized subset of the "kinetic energy" of an object. Both of them are dependent on the motion of mass, one in a more limited sense than the other.
The big difference is that Momentum can be negative, when Kinetic Energy can't.
That is why, when you have a big system, isolated from other systems, and composed of several subsystems, you can give momentum to some subsystems. But the sum of the momentum given is zero. For a positive momentum given to any small subsystem, there is a negative momentum given to some others, and the sum of all the gained momentum is still zero, in standard physics.
When you speak of momentum as defined classically being conserved even in inelastic colisions, and that heat and momentum are different and unrelated observables, you are expressing model and theory based conclusions.
Yes, that is why I had clearly written in GR. My point is not to say that conversion from momentum to heat is impossible, but that it is not compatible with GR.
There are many ways that electrical/electromagnetic energy can be used to generate kinetic energy/momentum.., and momentum can then be used to generate both heat and electrical/electromagnetic energy. As long as the energy balances (CoE is satisfied) CoM is conserved.
What you call CoM is not the standard CoM. The standard CoM means that an isolated system always keep the same momentum. No momentum can be converted into heat according to CoM.
You may develop a new theory where Momentum can be converted into heat. :) But in that case CoM is not satisfied. Conservation of Momentum means that the momentum can't be converted into energy.
-
I thought the circumference of a loop antenna should ideally be equal to wavelength.
The Eagleworks guys use much smaller loops: 13.5 mm (circumference ~42 mm ) for 1.94 GHz. Wavelength ~155 mm, so a little bigger than 1/4 lambda.
Start with some basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops_as_transmitting_antennas
ID and OD of a small loop will cause phase differences in radiating fields and in a high Q cavity lead to a higher VWSR.
Serious on forcing a high Q like the optomized magnetic point dipole in FEKO or meep which returns extrondary high Qs because of the way it couples to the magnetic field you need to build a unbuidable antenna.
The next best way is a helical antenna which makes a plane wave although it doesn't fit well in a cavity being very long, it still has low VWSR and couples well to the magnetic field locking a TE mode.
(http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance/helical_antenna.jpg)
Fit could be just one reason why Shawyer went to a modified quadrifiler helical.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/agZOr4T8I3w/hqdefault.jpg)
It fits well into the cavity, low VWSR, couples to the fields and can lock in a TEmode.
You could also build one like monomorphic modeled in FEKO for Shawyer's design which works quite well. Or just spend 5 bucks or so and get it from Ebay http://tinyurl.com/hsa8u2s making sure your frequencies match.
Shell
-
To answer the question you began with, "What do you means by Kinetic energy (momentum) ?. In the larger context "momentum" is a specialized subset of the "kinetic energy" of an object. Both of them are dependent on the motion of mass, one in a more limited sense than the other.
The big difference is that Momentum can be negative, when Kinetic Energy can't.
That is why, when you have a big system, isolated from other systems, and composed of several subsystems, you can give momentum to some subsystems. But the sum of the momentum given is zero. For a positive momentum given to any small subsystem, there is a negative momentum given to some others, and the sum of all the gained momentum is still zero, in standard physics.
When you speak of momentum as defined classically being conserved even in inelastic colisions, and that heat and momentum are different and unrelated observables, you are expressing model and theory based conclusions.
Yes, that is why I had clearly written in GR. My point is not to say that conversion from momentum to heat is impossible, but that it is not compatible with GR.
There are many ways that electrical/electromagnetic energy can be used to generate kinetic energy/momentum.., and momentum can then be used to generate both heat and electrical/electromagnetic energy. As long as the energy balances (CoE is satisfied) CoM is conserved.
What you call CoM is not the standard CoM. The standard CoM means that an isolated system always keep the same momentum. No momentum can be converted into heat according to CoM.
You may develop a new theory where Momentum can be converted into heat. :) But in that case CoM is not satisfied. Conservation of Momentum means that the momentum can't be converted into energy.
Everything you are saying appears to be model and theory based interpretations, not observables. Just what I was attempting to point out.
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Any discussion of the observable momentum of objects or an object's component parts and/CoM within the context of GR, is a projected interpretation of classical Newtonian observations. I am unaware of any direct observations involving either, that are not entirely dependent on model/theory based interpretation.
Momentum can be negative only base on chosen frame of reference and since v^2 is a variable in kinetic energy, it to is dependent on frame of reference. In different ways and to different degrees, but in both cases v is a frame dependent quantity.
We do not know how most of what we think of as the laws of physics transition to the larger context of GR, because we have not and cannot as of yet directly observe and measure any of the underlying observables, over a sufficiently significant variation in the tidal effects of gravitation. We make best guesses, but those are always based on preconceived model and theory based bias.
To,the point we don't know if what we know about CoM, as it involves the motion of objects, is conserved within the context of GR. We don't even know if the speed of light is a constant within the context of the tidal effects of gravitation and thus GR, because we are unable to accurately directly measure the speed of light, within the context of a significant variation in the tidal effects of gravitation.
We know a little bit of what IS with some certainty, and we imagine and project that into and onto the larger context of the greater reality of nature and physics that remains outside direct observation.
Personally I believe we do a very good job, projecting what we know beyond our locally observable environment, but it remains important, especially when dealing with potentially new technologies, to remember just what the limitations of what we know with certainty are.
-
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Here is something that I find really confusing... when we see a small object hit the Earth, we observe that its momentum has changed from non-zero to zero. On the other hand, we know that the total momentum of the system "earth + object" has not changed, so the Earth must have gained some momentum. Obviously this cannot be measured, but we know it must be true (otherwise CoM would be violated). Now when we look at "anomalous thrust" devices (such as EmDrive), we observe that they apparently gain momentum. It would be logical to assume that this is caused by interaction with some other object (or objects) which are gaining the opposite momentum, but we don't know the mechanism of this interaction yet (woodward effect and interaction with other objects in the universe is one hypothesis). Why do some people choose to throw away CoM and assume that it's not "pushing against" (interacting with) anything?
-
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Here is something that I find really confusing... when we see a small object hit the Earth, we observe that its momentum has changed from non-zero to zero. On the other hand, we know that the total momentum of the system "earth + object" has not changed, so the Earth must have gained some momentum. Obviously this cannot be measured, but we know it must be true (otherwise CoM would be violated). Now when we look at "anomalous thrust" devices (such as EmDrive), we observe that they apparently gain momentum. It would be logical to assume that this is caused by interaction with some other object (or objects) which are gaining the opposite momentum, but we don't know the mechanism of this interaction yet (woodward effect and interaction with other objects in the universe is one hypothesis). Why do some people choose to throw away CoM and assume that it's not "pushing against" (interacting with) anything?
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
-
In one of the earlier incarnations of this thread I may have posted something about hidden sectors of space time related to disappearing neutrons... The topic is in the popular science media with the publication of new papers related to the topic. So here is the article from which the papers can be found. This is by way of showing that what appears to be a closed system may not be closed at all. (and coincidentally giving me more hope that my pet idea of exotic atoms made of weird particles may be possible.
)
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-dark-hidden-sector.html
-
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Here is something that I find really confusing... when we see a small object hit the Earth, we observe that its momentum has changed from non-zero to zero. On the other hand, we know that the total momentum of the system "earth + object" has not changed, so the Earth must have gained some momentum. Obviously this cannot be measured, but we know it must be true (otherwise CoM would be violated). Now when we look at "anomalous thrust" devices (such as EmDrive), we observe that they apparently gain momentum. It would be logical to assume that this is caused by interaction with some other object (or objects) which are gaining the opposite momentum, but we don't know the mechanism of this interaction yet (woodward effect and interaction with other objects in the universe is one hypothesis). Why do some people choose to throw away CoM and assume that it's not "pushing against" (interacting with) anything?
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
Maybe. But some think that CoM allows the momentum to be converted into energy.
And some others (Shawyer) think that CoM allows a system to gain momentum without changing the momentum of anything else in the universe.
Others (like me) consider that, in a flat spacetime, and for an inertial reference frame, CoM means a strict conservation of momentum for each isolated system.
It is not very usefull to all agree on CoM if we don't have the same notion of what it is.
EDIT Also there is often a context problem. For example, in many cases, flat spacetime, isolated systems, and inertial reference frame are not mentionned, because they seems contextually evident.
-
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
Here is how I see it:
Fact: a seemingly anomalous thrust is being observed in experiments. No obvious exhaust is detected. The device seems to be gaining momentum.
Explanation #1: this is the result of a systematic error or some spurious force that has not been taken into account yet. If true, EmDrive cannot work. This can be confirmed or ruled out by doing further experiments (in space, etc).
Explanation #2: the thrust is real, but it is caused by interaction with some object/field (hopefully not just the Earth). This interaction may require a new physical theory to be developed, but this theory would not overturn CoM. If true, this would mean that the object(s) it's interacting with acts as a propellant, and as the relative "device/propellant" velocity increases, the acceleration rate will drop (otherwise CoM/CoE would not be observed, as has been previously discussed many times in this thread). This does not mean that EmDrive cannot work, it just means that there are some limitations to the thrust it can deliver, as dictated by CoM/CoE.
Explanation #3: the thrust is real, there is no interaction with external fields/objects, CoM/CoE is not observed in the classical sense and must be corrected. If true, the device could potentially deliver constant acceleration for constant power regardless of its relative movement (since it's not interacting with any external fields/objects).
All I'm saying is that even if further experiments show that #1 does not explain the thrust, then #2 is much more likely than #3, because #3 implies free energy or perpetual motion.
-
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
Here is how I see it:
Fact: a seemingly anomalous thrust is being observed in experiments. No obvious exhaust is detected. The device seems to be gaining momentum.
Explanation #1: this is the result of a systematic error or some spurious force that has not been taken into account yet. If true, EmDrive cannot work. This can be confirmed or ruled out by doing further experiments (in space, etc).
Explanation #2: the thrust is real, but it is caused by interaction with some object/field (hopefully not just the Earth). This interaction may or may not require a new physical theory, but this theory would not overturn CoM. If true, this would mean that the object(s) it's interacting with acts as a propellant, and as the relative "device/propellant" velocity increases, the acceleration rate will drop (otherwise CoM/CoE would not be observed, as has been previously discussed many times in this thread).
Explanation #3: the thrust is real, there is no interaction with external fields/objects, CoM is not observed in the classical sense and must be corrected. If true, the device could potentially deliver constant acceleration for constant power regardless of its relative movement (since it's not interacting with any external fields/objects).
All I'm saying is that even if further experiments show that #1 does not explain the thrust, then #2 is much more likely than #3.
It is the same if I see a $500 bill on the ground, there are also several possibilities.
1 : It is a monopoly bill.
2 : It is a real bill. I am lucky.
3 : A crazy man deposes a bill at the same place each day. I just have to go each day to get another $500
Of course, 3 is not impossible, but 2 is more likely.
-
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
Here is how I see it:
Fact: a seemingly anomalous thrust is being observed in experiments. No obvious exhaust is detected. The device seems to be gaining momentum.
Explanation #1: this is the result of a systematic error or some spurious force that has not been taken into account yet. If true, EmDrive cannot work. This can be confirmed or ruled out by doing further experiments (in space, etc).
Explanation #2: the thrust is real, but it is caused by interaction with some object/field (hopefully not just the Earth). This interaction may require a new physical theory to be developed, but this theory would not overturn CoM. If true, this would mean that the object(s) it's interacting with acts as a propellant, and as the relative "device/propellant" velocity increases, the acceleration rate will drop (otherwise CoM/CoE would not be observed, as has been previously discussed many times in this thread). This does not mean that EmDrive cannot work, it just means that there are some limitations to the thrust it can deliver, as dictated by CoM/CoE.
Explanation #3: the thrust is real, there is no interaction with external fields/objects, CoM/CoE is not observed in the classical sense and must be corrected. If true, the device could potentially deliver constant acceleration for constant power regardless of its relative movement (since it's not interacting with any external fields/objects).
All I'm saying is that even if further experiments show that #1 does not explain the thrust, then #2 is much more likely than #3, because #3 implies free energy or perpetual motion.
Oh joy, here we go again!
I don't see why #2 means it has to reduce its acceleration as it gains speed to conserve CoE. If the "propellant" of unknown mechanism is real, there is no need to impose limits on how it works without further data. It could be just like a physical propellant released from the ship which would always conserve momentum and energy no matter how fast it goes. Like a physical propellant, the faster you observe it, the more 'base' energy it has to give.
I suspect it keeps accelerating and just goes and goes and goes. It doesn't violate CoM or CoE by doing so.
-
cute program for designing a helical quadfire antenna or as called a eggbeater.
http://jcoppens.com/ant/qfh/calc.en.php
(http://jcoppens.com/ant/qfh/img/qfh1am.jpg)
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
-
Oh dear the leak has now reached larger space sites.
http://www.universetoday.com/131895/physics-really-violated-em-drive-leaked-nasa-paper/
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
-
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Here is something that I find really confusing... when we see a small object hit the Earth, we observe that its momentum has changed from non-zero to zero. On the other hand, we know that the total momentum of the system "earth + object" has not changed, so the Earth must have gained some momentum. Obviously this cannot be measured, but we know it must be true (otherwise CoM would be violated). Now when we look at "anomalous thrust" devices (such as EmDrive), we observe that they apparently gain momentum. It would be logical to assume that this is caused by interaction with some other object (or objects) which are gaining the opposite momentum, but we don't know the mechanism of this interaction yet (woodward effect and interaction with other objects in the universe is one hypothesis). Why do some people choose to throw away CoM and assume that it's not "pushing against" (interacting with) anything?
Look at it this way. The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. The direction it goes should be opposite the side which has the highest power dissipation, assuming the power dissipation is not symmetrical. This is ALL that is required. The equations that say it shouldn't move assume no dissipation, or symmetrical dissipation ONLY.
Quantum mechanics tells us that when the copper atoms and bulk metal absorb momentum from the field, It feels a recoil in the direction of the momentum vector to satisfy CoM. When it re-emitts the momentum, it does not necessarily have to have the "equal and opposite" value! The recoil of the atom is opposite the momentum of the emitted photon. It's direction and momentum is a probability distribution, partly determined by the motion of the atoms (heat). The emitted photons could be doppler shifted, for example. Like a laser, where pumping the laser to create a population inversion, requires a frequency "higher" than the one the laser will later emit.
In other words, absorption of the photon (momentum) and it's recoil is one process of CoM. Re-emission of the photon (momentum) and it's recoil is another process of CoM, that is influenced by heat and motion of the atom emitting it. GR does not consider QM processes, it is purely classical. So GR will need to be modified. So what? It's a classical approximation of a Quantum theory anyway and we know this. We need to stop acting like physics MUST be interpreted through a geometrical perspective to be correct. That's a preference, not a requirement.
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
This is kind of what I've been thinking. Some of the energy is being absorbed by the atoms, but not as heat...as some other type of non-random internal deformation. This deformation is most pronounced in the large plate and it induces a kind of anti-gravity field. This field causes the device to "fall" forward. But it will only keep "falling" so long as the field is there, which is generated by the energy going into the system. So I don't see how this violates CoE. But I'm sure I'm wrong....just my idle musings.
-
Start with some basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops_as_transmitting_antennas
ID and OD of a small loop will cause phase differences in radiating fields and in a high Q cavity lead to a higher VWSR.
Thanks!
The next best way is a helical antenna which makes a plane wave although it doesn't fit well in a cavity being very long, it still has low VWSR and couples well to the magnetic field locking a TE mode.
Fit could be just one reason why Shawyer went to a modified quadrifiler helical.
It fits well into the cavity, low VWSR, couples to the fields and can lock in a TEmode.
You could also build one like monomorphic modeled in FEKO for Shawyer's design which works quite well. Or just spend 5 bucks or so and get it from Ebay making sure your frequencies match.
Shell
That looks like an interesting alternative. I have to look into it, get better understanding of its radiation pattern.
regards, Peter
-
Am considering purchase of Niobium sheet (1 mm) where I could sell of amounts not used to those who would be interested in purchasing various pieces at my cost only. (no charge for shipping etc.) If any NSF members are interested, please let me know as it would affect what I might purchase. FL
BTW 1 mm is just being thrown out there ....thinner or thicker might be preferred by most of y'all.
-
Start with some basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops_as_transmitting_antennas
ID and OD of a small loop will cause phase differences in radiating fields and in a high Q cavity lead to a higher VWSR.
Thanks!
The next best way is a helical antenna which makes a plane wave although it doesn't fit well in a cavity being very long, it still has low VWSR and couples well to the magnetic field locking a TE mode.
Fit could be just one reason why Shawyer went to a modified quadrifiler helical.
It fits well into the cavity, low VWSR, couples to the fields and can lock in a TEmode.
You could also build one like monomorphic modeled in FEKO for Shawyer's design which works quite well. Or just spend 5 bucks or so and get it from Ebay making sure your frequencies match.
Shell
That looks like an interesting alternative. I have to look into it, get better understanding of its radiation pattern.
regards, Peter
Good reference.
(http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/16867/media/image33.png)
http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-satellite-communications/helical-antennas-in-satellite-radio-channel#F15
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
I think that the problem here is about mixing physical description and understanding. CoM is descriptive physics; it gives results and doesn`t promise any explanation. On the other hand, GR presents us with both description and some explanation. There is no push or pull or forces i.e source to source interaction. Both the Earth and the Moon, for example, move into and according to the influence field of each other where they are in in that field. Since we are trying to understand/speculate on what the emDrive does, it might be better, for now, to leave the strict descriptive physics behind. In other words, we (you) do the physics for the inside of the cavity, but you have not worked out the influence escaping the cavity...
... this makes it hard to optimize a cavity input/output when using, in the end, a CoM based pendulum test. .... Action at a distance??? Where and what is the field?
EDIT: I understand that the cavity is sometimes mounted on the actual pendulum arm...
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
-
Oh dear the leak has now reached larger space sites.
http://www.universetoday.com/131895/physics-really-violated-em-drive-leaked-nasa-paper/
Funny how they write this off as just a report leak from NASA and not a paper that has or is going through peered review process and in December will be formally publish in a journal.
-
The TM modes seem to have the highest Q for this cavity. Does that make sense? The loop is having its field in the axial direction of the cavity.
Thanks,
Peter
That is because you're using side wall injection. You are going to have a very difficult time (just like NASA did) trying to excite the TE01x modes. For example, I was able to locate TE012 at ~4.407Ghz, but it is VERY weak with the antenna mounted to the side and is very close to a TM mode.
If you move the loop to the center things clear up greatly. Also, FEKO says your antenna wire diameter of 2mm is too much. The ratio of wire radius and length are not ideal. You may need to switch to a thinner wire.
Thanks a lot for the advice and the sim, Monomorphic. I will make a new cavity with 1 mm wire. But, uhh..., how about the supply wires if you move the loop to the center? In a sim it is easy to do, but you will have strong influence of the wires from the side or endplate (either coax or two copper wires).
How about placing the loop on one of the endplates, halfway the center and edge, and opening (B-field) facing the center? The loop is not placed at a maximum then, that's true. I will try it out.
Peter
Added some sketch to the image.
I thought the circumference of a loop antenna should ideally be equal to wavelength.
If it were a full wavelength then current flowing around the current loop would have half the current going around the loop in one direction while current around the other half of the antenna loop would be going the opposite direction.
For the TE01 mode the electric field is only flowing in one direction so you want the current in the antenna loop to also only be flowing in one direction.
I think, Ideally, there is a parallel to the shape of the electric field of the desired mode, and the shape of the input antenna's current.
It might be possible to use a full wavelength long antenna by folding it back on itself and making a 2nd loop that is in reverse of the 1st loop. Maybe it could be like a high frequency solenoid.
I've never had the opportunity to actually test such devices. I am primarily using my minds eye to try and imagine such behavior, so its possible I am not correct, but I am fairly confident it should be correct.
The negative current should flow in the direction of the electric field to parallel with adding emitted light in the cavity, and also and it seems ideal that the electric field maximums appear about 1/4lambda from the end plates (TE012 mode in particular). By the time the current reverses in the antenna (1/2 lambda or cycle) the reflected wave from the plate 1/4lambda should have traveled (1/2 lambda or cycle) and add constructively with the antenna.
When the electric field grows large enough in the cavity it should almost stop all current in the antenna except what is lost to heat (voltage on antenna opposes voltage from light). There should develop a standing wave in the wire to the antenna and when the wave dies down periodically, there will be a very small traveling wave representing the energy carried into the cavity to maintain the energy lost. (reflected waves having less amplitude than the waves moving toward the cavity in the wire). I might be digressing a bit.
-
In GR, which again is a geometric model describing the tidal effects of gravitation, momentum as a component of the math, is not an observable. It is a descriptive component of the geometric model.
Momentum as discussed in terms of the anomalous thrust and EmDrives is an observable... Even if it has not yet been conclusively observed in published data.
Here is something that I find really confusing... when we see a small object hit the Earth, we observe that its momentum has changed from non-zero to zero. On the other hand, we know that the total momentum of the system "earth + object" has not changed, so the Earth must have gained some momentum. Obviously this cannot be measured, but we know it must be true (otherwise CoM would be violated).
Repeating myself.... What we know about momentum and the conservation of momentum is based on classical Newtonian mechanics, the way motion and momentum is transferred between billiard balls... and other collisions within our ability to accurately measure the masses and velocities involved before and after a collision... In many many discussions we then logically predict how what we know as a matter of direct observation applies to situations and conditions well outside our ability to accurately observe and measure. We do that very well. We are very clever and have an incredible innate ability to accurately imagine how what we do know might affect conditions we have not yet directly observed. As I said we are very good at this.., but we are not always right. That is why it is important to always remember the line that separates what we have actually observed and measured, from how we imagine and project those conclusions to unmeasurable conditions.
For this reason while your statements above are accurate, that last qualification, "(otherwise CoM would be violated), becomes a dangerous assumption. We cannot know that what we do understand about momentum and the CoM has no limitations. There is more to the universe and physics that we do not know than we do know.
Now when we look at "anomalous thrust" devices (such as EmDrive), we observe that they apparently gain momentum. It would be logical to assume that this is caused by interaction with some other object (or objects) which are gaining the opposite momentum, but we don't know the mechanism of this interaction yet (woodward effect and interaction with other objects in the universe is one hypothesis). Why do some people choose to throw away CoM and assume that it's not "pushing against" (interacting with) anything?
To answer the question in that last sentence.., because within the context of classical Newtonian mechanics where our understanding of CoM is rooted, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. To move something you have to push it or it has to push against something else. That is what we have observed, measured and experienced... And it does not seem immediately clear that anything like that is occurring in the case of an EmDrive. So in an effort to hold our world view together we reach out for explanations... or we just reject the claims of an anomalous force as artifacts of experimental or systemic error. We all do the very best we can to protect and defend our world view (of physics) and what we have come to believe.
Still many of those who might be labeled skeptics in these discussions, are just defending science itself by demanding that obvious sources of experimental and systemic error are addressed, and any apparent conflicts with established physics explained.
-
.....
I've never had the opportunity to actually test such devices. I am primarily using my minds eye to try and imagine such behavior, so its possible I am not correct, but I am fairly confident it should be correct.
....
Our imagination and mind's eye may be our greatest asset and gift. Look where it has brought us, from stone tools and cold nights, to EmDrives and the very edges of what might be. . .
-
"Real (unvirtual) photons carry electric, kinetic energy. Virtual photons carry potential charge energy (Electric field). Net energy is conserved."
https://www.quora.com/Real-unvirtual-photons-carry-electric-kinetic-energy-Virtual-photons-carry-potential-charge-energy-Electric-field-Net-energy-is-conserved-How-is-this-conservation-explained-using-the-quantum-field-theory
Beginning to study Photons and the conversion to/from E fields and K which conserve energy, including losses to heat. Superconductivity environment will attenuate heat loss and more efficient E/K transformation.
While early in my stage of this research, this is the rabbit hole I'm exploring. Quite a few papers on the topic. Controlling the E field transformation and vectoring K seems to be a worthwhile pastime for the moment.
E field mapping will be a high priority once testing resumes with 1701B
-
cute program for designing a helical quadfire antenna or as called a eggbeater.
http://jcoppens.com/ant/qfh/calc.en.php (http://jcoppens.com/ant/qfh/calc.en.php)
(http://jcoppens.com/ant/qfh/img/qfh1am.jpg)
Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
-
Because that's how they rationalize the EmDrive can't work at all. I don't know anyone who thinks it does work that argues CoM is not applicable.
Here is how I see it:
Fact: a seemingly anomalous thrust is being observed in experiments. No obvious exhaust is detected. The device seems to be gaining momentum.
Explanation #1: this is the result of a systematic error or some spurious force that has not been taken into account yet. If true, EmDrive cannot work. This can be confirmed or ruled out by doing further experiments (in space, etc).
Explanation #2: the thrust is real, but it is caused by interaction with some object/field (hopefully not just the Earth). This interaction may require a new physical theory to be developed, but this theory would not overturn CoM. If true, this would mean that the object(s) it's interacting with acts as a propellant, and as the relative "device/propellant" velocity increases, the acceleration rate will drop (otherwise CoM/CoE would not be observed, as has been previously discussed many times in this thread). This does not mean that EmDrive cannot work, it just means that there are some limitations to the thrust it can deliver, as dictated by CoM/CoE.
Explanation #3: the thrust is real, there is no interaction with external fields/objects, CoM/CoE is not observed in the classical sense and must be corrected. If true, the device could potentially deliver constant acceleration for constant power regardless of its relative movement (since it's not interacting with any external fields/objects).
All I'm saying is that even if further experiments show that #1 does not explain the thrust, then #2 is much more likely than #3, because #3 implies free energy or perpetual motion.
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
With the constant acceleration supposition, it would means that we can steal as much energy as we need.
We know many ways of stealing energy. For example stealing energy to coal, to petrol, to the sunlight, or by gravity assist. But each one is limited. Each one depends of an external availability. For example, we don't have much petrol in France.
Or there is no sunlight during the night, and there is less sunlight on mars than on earth.
Any way of harvesting these known energies is limited, in the better case to a constant flux (the sunlight at constant sun distance) and for some, it is limited to rare opportunities (gravity assist)
Here, if we have found a new type of stealing energy, why should we suppose that, unlike all other known energies, it is not limited to a constant flux, but that it can give a linearly increasing power for the same device ?
I don't claim that it is impossible. I hope it is true. It would be so wonderfull. But I still find it is less likely than more limited ways of stealing energy.
Also, if the universe has a finite quantity of matter+energy, it has to stop accelerating when it has stolen all the the universe. :P
-
Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
-
Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
monomorphic has done several different design simulations in FEKO already.
One of the better ones was the clover leaf in Roger Shawyer's new design. It preformed extremely well. It's like the one I suggested you look at from ebay for a few dollars.
Shell
-
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
Welcome to the forum !
I am not sure an accelerometer to be the best way for very small thrusts. EagleWork used an interferometer to mesure a possible distorsion of spacetime, and arrived to a positive repeatable result. But still needs to be confirmed by other experiments.
-
Quantum mechanics tells us that when the copper atoms and bulk metal absorb momentum from the field, It feels a recoil in the direction of the momentum vector to satisfy CoM. When it re-emitts the momentum, it does not necessarily have to have the "equal and opposite" value! The recoil of the atom is opposite the momentum of the emitted photon. It's direction and momentum is a probability distribution, partly determined by the motion of the atoms (heat).
Take a solar sail and its simplified model: an incoming photon is either absorbed or reflected by the sail:
- When the photon is absorbed, its momentum p is transmitted forward to the atom in the same direction as the incoming photon, and has the same momentum vector p. The sail moves forward.
- When the photon is reflected backwards, the photon carries a backward momentum -p and imparts a forward momentum 2p to the atom of the sail. The sail moves forward.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K8C_eoIpik4/VwMPFysaKaI/AAAAAAAACeA/3p5NfQXHuIg9J8ZAxf9mIsUI0Ip_LGh5g/s1600/Photon%2BMomentum.png)
Now, let's take a closed tapered cavity, and what Shawyer says. I know Shawyer's theory beaks CoM and CoE and that the cavity as a whole can't move as a closed system. But let this aside for the moment and let's focus only on photon momentum description.
Shawyer says the incoming photon momentum on the big end is greater than the incoming photon momentum on the small end, because the photon wavelength would vary according to the guide wavelength, which continuously varies in a tapered cavity. The guide wavelength is greater at the big end, so the group velocity, so the momentum. Shawyer says the resulting radiation pressure on the big end Fbig is greater than the radiation pressure on the small end Fsmall. He calls the resulting force Fbig-Fsmall the backward static force or "thrust force". Please note that according to Shawyer, the frustum moves forward in the opposite direction to this thrust force, small end leading, along a "reaction force" vector:
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/space-08-masterclass-1220640988892521-9/95/emdrive-presentation-at-space-08-conference-barbican-london-8-728.jpg?cb=1222375723)
But let this claim aside for now as it is counterintuitive, to say the least.
Shawyer only talks about the momentum imparted to the atoms of the end plates, and then posits an equal and opposite force arises (the reaction force) which is necessarily there to counterbalance the static thrust force, in order to satisfy CoM.
Yet, while he has built all the needed tools, Shawyer doesn't consider the action of the inertial mass of the reflected photons themselves, which are still part of the system enclosed by the cavity (as opposed to the free space photons incoming on our out of a solar sail, which make the solar sail an open system).
So about the momentum carried by photons between the end plates, which would vary continuously between reflections at the ends, while they are travelling:
- The photon momentum would continuously decrease while travelling from big end to small end.
- The photon momentum would continuously increase while travelling from small end to big end.
Shawyer is continuously bashed for his "theory". But this is exactly what McCulloch describes with MiHsC (http://emdrive.wiki/Mike_McCulloch's_MiHsC_Theory):
"Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end."
Also:
"MiHsC allows more Unruh waves (greater photon inertial mass) at the wide end, so as new microwave energy is put into the cavity its centre of mass is continually being shifted by MiHsC towards the wide end (see diagram). To conserve momentum the cavity has to move the other way towards the narrow end."
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6-ucjFi_luA/Vzg4K-8ehUI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/biEM-N1Vf-c6FbTlspm6fMIlIo6uKR3dgCLcB/s1600/EMDmihsc5.jpg)
So Shawyer is focusing on the momentum imparted to the solid atoms of the frustum, and posits an equal and opposite reaction force.
While McCulloch is focusing on the photon momentum gradually shifting while travelling between the two end plates.
Wouldn't this be a start to finally consider separately Shawyer's backward "thrust force component" and Shawyer's forward "reaction force component", the latter being in fact McCulloch's force?
I have the feeling that Shawyer's backward thrust force can't indeed move the frustum, as it seems like "moving a car pushing on a steering wheel while being sat in the driver's seat, while someone sat in the back seats is pushing even harder on the rear windscreen."
But I have also the feeling that a gradually shifting photon inertial mass in one direction would move the frustum in the other direction, like a long boat would move forward on the water as a reaction when a sailor on the deck carries a big weight stored at the bow, running with it towards the stern. While the weight dropped on the deck at the stern would slowly evaporate (power dissipation) the sailor would return without it (lighter, only sailor's mass) at the bow to reiterate the process with another weight. This illustrate the displacement of an object as a reaction to the continuous shifting of its center of mass, and the process keeps working as long as there are weights stored onboard and a sailor to displace them (i.e. as long as RF power is supplied into the tuned resonant cavity).
This seems similar to the concept of continuous EM energy center of mass displacement with continuous RF power feeding and continuous power loss described differently by WarpTech.
-
Quick animation showing what happens when the antenna is moved down the central z-axis. Highest field strength towards center of top lobe for TE013. Click image to see animation.
-
Take a solar sail and its simplified model: an incoming photon is either absorbed or reflected by the sail:
- When the photon is absorbed, its momentum p is transmitted forward to the atom in the same direction as the incoming photon, and has the same momentum vector p. The sail moves forward.
- When the photon is reflected backwards, the photon carries a backward momentum -p and imparts a forward momentum 2p to the atom of the sail. The sail moves forward.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K8C_eoIpik4/VwMPFysaKaI/AAAAAAAACeA/3p5NfQXHuIg9J8ZAxf9mIsUI0Ip_LGh5g/s1600/Photon%2BMomentum.png)
Now, let's take a closed tapered cavity, and what Shawyer says. I know Shawyer's theory beaks CoM and CoE and that the cavity as a whole can't move as a closed system. But let this aside for the moment and let's focus only on photon momentum description.
Shawyer says the incoming photon momentum on the big end is greater than the incoming photon momentum on the small end, because the photon wavelength would vary according to the guide wavelength, which continuously varies in a tapered cavity. The guide wavelength is greater at the big end, so the group velocity, so the momentum. Shawyer says the resulting radiation pressure on the big end Fbig is greater than the radiation pressure on the small end Fsmall. He calls the resulting force Fbig-Fsmall the backward static force or "thrust force". Please note that according to Shawyer, the frustum moves forward in the opposite direction to this thrust force, small end leading, along a "reaction force" vector:
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/space-08-masterclass-1220640988892521-9/95/emdrive-presentation-at-space-08-conference-barbican-london-8-728.jpg?cb=1222375723)
But let this claim aside for now as it is counterintuitive, to say the least.
Shawyer only talks about the momentum imparted to the atoms of the end plates, and then posits an equal and opposite force arises (the reaction force) which is necessarily there to counterbalance the static thrust force, in order to satisfy CoM.
Yet, while he has built all the needed tools, Shawyer doesn't consider the action of the inertial mass of the reflected photons themselves, which are still part of the system enclosed by the cavity (as opposed to the free space photons incoming on our out of a solar sail, which make the solar sail an open system).
So about the momentum carried by photons between the end plates, which would vary continuously between reflections at the ends, while they are travelling:
- The photon momentum would continuously decrease while travelling from big end to small end.
- The photon momentum would continuously increase while travelling from small end to big end.
Shawyer is continuously bashed for his "theory". But this is exactly what McCulloch describes with MiHsC (http://emdrive.wiki/Mike_McCulloch's_MiHsC_Theory):
"Fewer Unruh waves will fit at the small end of the frustum, resulting in a pressure differential. Photons at the larger end therefore have higher inertial mass, and to conserve momentum in our reference frame, its frame, the cavity, must move towards the narrow end."
Also:
"MiHsC allows more Unruh waves (greater photon inertial mass) at the wide end, so as new microwave energy is put into the cavity its centre of mass is continually being shifted by MiHsC towards the wide end (see diagram). To conserve momentum the cavity has to move the other way towards the narrow end."
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6-ucjFi_luA/Vzg4K-8ehUI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/biEM-N1Vf-c6FbTlspm6fMIlIo6uKR3dgCLcB/s1600/EMDmihsc5.jpg)
So Shawyer is focusing on the momentum imparted to the solid atoms of the frustum, and posits an equal and opposite reaction force.
While McCulloch is focusing on the photon momentum gradually shifting while travelling between the two end plates.
Wouldn't this be a start to finally consider separately Shawyer's backward "thrust force component" and Shawyer's forward "reaction force component", the latter being in fact McCulloch's force?
I have the feeling that Shawyer's backward thrust force can't indeed move the frustum, as it seems like "moving a car pushing on a steering wheel while being sat in the driver's seat, while someone sat in the back seats is pushing even harder on the rear windscreen."
But I have also the feeling that a gradually shifting photon inertial mass in one direction would move the frustum in the other direction, like a long boat would move forward on the water as a reaction when a sailor on the deck carries a big weight stored at the bow, running with it towards the stern. While the weight dropped on the deck at the stern would slowly evaporate (power dissipation) the sailor would return without it (lighter, only sailor's mass) at the bow to reiterate the process with another weight. This illustrate the displacement of an object as a reaction to the continuous shifting of its center of mass, and the process keeps working as long as there are weights stored onboard and a sailor to displace them (i.e. as long as RF power is supplied into the tuned resonant cavity).
This seems similar to the concept of continuous EM energy center of mass displacement with continuous RF power feeding and continuous power loss described differently by WarpTech.
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
With standard physics, there is not way it can works. Shawyer affirms that there is no pressure on the side walls. With standard physics it is false.
At the opposite, With MiHsC, there is a minimal acceleration law that allows the force to be different. So, if photons are accelerating in an asymetrical way when bouncing, you can have asymetrical forces, and a thrust in some direction. This thrust means an interaction with the rest of the universe.
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome. :)
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
As I stated many times before, P=F*v is the mechanical power the system has and is not to be confused with the input electrical power we were discussing in earlier discussions. In this discussion, I was not discussing anything about input electrical power to an EmDrive. Of course even if the EmDrive electrical power was constant for a constant acceleration, the mechanical power would be velocity dependent and thus observer dependent. My question to you is this, two different observers at different velocities see different powers of the ship. Which is the real power?
-
Quantum mechanics tells us that when the copper atoms and bulk metal absorb momentum from the field, It feels a recoil in the direction of the momentum vector to satisfy CoM. When it re-emitts the momentum, it does not necessarily have to have the "equal and opposite" value! The recoil of the atom is opposite the momentum of the emitted photon. It's direction and momentum is a probability distribution, partly determined by the motion of the atoms (heat).
...
But I have also the feeling that a gradually shifting photon inertial mass in one direction would move the frustum in the other direction, like a long boat would move forward on the water as a reaction when a sailor on the deck carries a big weight stored at the bow, running with it towards the stern. While the weight dropped on the deck at the stern would slowly evaporate (power dissipation) the sailor would return without it (lighter, only sailor's mass) at the bow to reiterate the process with another weight. This illustrate the displacement of an object as a reaction to the continuous shifting of its center of mass, and the process keeps working as long as there are weights stored onboard and a sailor to displace them (i.e. as long as RF power is supplied into the tuned resonant cavity).
This seems similar to the concept of continuous EM energy center of mass displacement with continuous RF power feeding and continuous power loss described differently by WarpTech.
What you are describing is the same as @Notsosureofit's model and of my current model as well. Except I use PV / GR and not MiHsC Theory to do it. I understand what Shawyer is saying, he's just not very good at saying it. Because of that, he says some things that are totally backwards where I believe he doesn't actually know what mode he was exciting at the time of getting the conflicting results. Different modes will give different results, depending on the symmetries of the forces and the losses.
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
As I stated many times before, P=F*v is the mechanical power the system has and is not to be confused with the input electrical power we were discussing in earlier discussions. In this discussion, I was not discussing anything about input electrical power to an EmDrive. Of course even if the EmDrive electrical power was constant for a constant acceleration, the mechanical power would be velocity dependent and thus observer dependent. My question to you is this, two different observers at different velocities see different powers of the ship. Which is the real power?
CoE means that, if the system is not stealing energy to something else, the electrical power has to be inferior or equal to the mechanical power.
For P=F*V it is clear, this relation is not true in all referential. This relation is true in the referential linked to what you are pushing against. That is why a car is limited (best possible case) to F=Electrical Power/V in the referential of the road. From the viewpoint of an observer on mars, F can be superior to P/V, because, from the viewpoint of a martian, the car can steal energy to the earth. For each reference frame, mars or earth, CoE is verified, but the relation F=P/V is not true for any referential.
It is important to note that the fact of stealing energy depends on the reference frame. From the earth reference frame, a probe that make an earth gravity assist has stolen nothing. From a sun reference frame, the probe has stolen Kinetic Energy to the earth.
-
...
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
With standard physics, there is not way it can works. Shawyer affirms that there is no pressure on the side walls. With standard physics it is false.
At the opposite, With MiHsC, there is a minimal acceleration law that allows the force to be different. So, if photons are accelerating in an asymetrical way when bouncing, you can have asymetrical forces, and a thrust in some direction. This thrust means an interaction with the rest of the universe.
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome. :)
It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
-
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
But both come to the same conclusion: the photons loose inertial mass while travelling from the big end towards the small end in a tapered cavity, and gain inertial mass while travelling small to big.
McCulloch says this is caused by the Unruh waves difference between big and small ends, that changes photon momentum between the end plates. This is new physics indeed.
Shawyer says it is the guide wavelength variation that changes photon momentum due to the Doppler effect: photons going small towards big end decrease in frequency (redshift) and photons going big to small increase in frequency (blueshift) and has a consequence their inertial mass varies accordingly.
I try to understand what makes Shawyer's statement impossible. What is needed first is answering this couple of questions:
- In a converging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave increase?
- In a diverging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave decrease?
Or even simpler, this unique question:
Does the wavelength of an EM wave depend on the guide wavelength?
We know TheTraveller's explanation. But what do physicists have to say about this. Have experiments been conducted measuring real radiation pressures on both end plates of cylindrical or tapered closed resonant cavities, or measuring local effective frequency of EM waves into various straight open waveguides of various diameters, or along z-axis of a tapered waveguide?
The way I see it, Shawyer provides a mechanism allowing momentum to be transferred from the travelling EM waves to the frustum, but the reaction force allowing the EmDrive to accelerate is not caused by the radiation pressure imbalance upon the two ends (or upon the side walls by the way). While it's true in Shawyer's model the big end plate gains greater momentum than the small end, this effect doesn't allow the EmDrive to move contrary to what everyone thinks Shawyer claims (perhaps including himself!) because both ends, physically attached together, are part of the thruster. The greater radiation pressure on the big end, compared to the one on the small end, is just a consequence of the momentum variation when photons travel back and forth in the tapered cavity, but the real cause of thrust (IMHO) is the photon momentum variation that occurs during the travel of the EM waves, hence the center of mass displacement and the resulting acceleration of the frustum as a reaction in order to satisfy CoM.
With standard physics, there is not way it can works. Shawyer affirms that there is no pressure on the side walls. With standard physics it is false.
To be complete about this claim by Shawyer:
- For the standing wave inside the resonant cavity, Shawyer says there are forces on the side walls, and those forces indeed cancel any end plate force imbalance between the big and small plates.
- For travelling waves however, when using appropriate spherical ends, he says the spherical wavefront is orthogonal to the side walls and the force exerted on side wall decreases down to zero. This may or may not be the case, and I recall this may have been proven (?) wrong in this forum.
As a reminder to those who state an open waveguide is not like a closed cavity: in the EmDrive, there is a standing wave due to the resonant nature of the cavity, but there are also opposite travelling waves between the two ends due to the pulse provided by the injected RF power. Shawyer favors working with such pulses, and with spherically shaped end plates in order to produce pulsed spherical wavefronts orthogonal to sidewalls.
-
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
But both come to the same conclusion: the photons loose inertial mass while travelling from the big end towards the small end in a tapered cavity, and gain inertial mass while travelling small to big.
McCulloch says this is caused by the Unruh waves difference between big and small ends, that changes photon momentum between the end plates. This is new physics indeed.
Shawyer says it is the guide wavelength variation that changes photon momentum due to the Doppler effect: photons going small towards big end decrease in frequency (redshift) and photons going big to small increase in frequency (blueshift) and has a consequence their inertial mass varies accordingly.
I try to understand what makes Shawyer's statement impossible. What is needed first is answering this couple of questions:
- In a converging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave increase?
- In a diverging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave decrease?
Or even simpler, this unique question:
Does the wavelength of an EM wave depend on the guide wavelength?
...
Please see General-Relativity author Notsosureofit's hypothesis:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator. (to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity)
(http://emdrive.wiki/images/f/fc/00_chart21.jpg)
Graph: example of the force of each mode vs frequency for m = 0 to 10, n = 1 to 5, p = 1 to 3 from the table referenced above.
The three curves represent p=1, p=2 and p=3, where p is the longitudinal wave-pattern mode shape number in the longitudinal direction, for modes TMmnp and TEmnp.
In this case Rs = 0.0794 m, Rb = 0.1397 m, L = 0.2286 m (the dimensions of the truncated cone cavity tested at NASA Eagleworks as reported by Brady et.al.) and Power*QualityFactor = 2*10^6 watts.
For constant geometrical dimensions, and constant quality factor and input power, the asymptotic behavior of thrust is inversely proportional to the cube of the frequency and proportional to the square of X.
-
...
I try to understand what makes Shawyer's statement impossible. What is needed first is answering this couple of questions:
- In a converging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave increase?
- In a diverging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave decrease?
Or even simpler, this unique question:
Does the wavelength of an EM wave depend on the guide wavelength?
We know TheTraveller's explanation. But what do physicists have to say about this. Have experiments been conducted measuring real radiation pressures on both end plates of cylindrical or tapered closed resonant cavities, or measuring local effective frequency of EM waves into various straight open waveguides of various diameters, or along z-axis of a tapered waveguide?
...
It's not that simple. As I've shown, if the frequency remains constant, the same effect can be had by varying the "resistance" as part of the decay time of the energy stored at each end. Q is proportional to a decay time constant, and that constant becomes a variable of the position in the frustum, when the losses due to resistance (not frequency shift) are asymmetrical.
Also, most would think that the Eigen modes of the frustum do not shift unless the dimensions change. I agree, it should be measured to quantify the effects going on inside, but along with the decay times.
-
It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
As I stated many times before, P=F*v is the mechanical power the system has and is not to be confused with the input electrical power we were discussing in earlier discussions. In this discussion, I was not discussing anything about input electrical power to an EmDrive. Of course even if the EmDrive electrical power was constant for a constant acceleration, the mechanical power would be velocity dependent and thus observer dependent. My question to you is this, two different observers at different velocities see different powers of the ship. Which is the real power?
CoE means that, if the system is not stealing energy to something else, the electrical power has to be inferior or equal to the mechanical power.
For P=F*V it is clear, this relation is not true in all referential. This relation is true in the referential linked to what you are pushing against. That is why a car is limited (best possible case) to F=Electrical Power/V in the referential of the road. From the viewpoint of an observer on mars, F can be superior to P/V, because, from the viewpoint of a martian, the car can steal energy to the earth. For each reference frame, mars or earth, CoE is verified, but the relation F=P/V is not true for any referential.
It is important to note that the fact of stealing energy depends on the reference frame. From the earth reference frame, a probe that make an earth gravity assist has stolen nothing. From a sun reference frame, the probe has stolen Kinetic Energy to the earth.
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
-
It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
-
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
Welcome to the forum !
I am not sure an accelerometer to be the best way for very small thrusts. EagleWork used an interferometer to mesure a possible distorsion of spacetime, and arrived to a positive repeatable result. But still needs to be confirmed by other experiments.
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
-
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
Welcome to the forum !
I am not sure an accelerometer to be the best way for very small thrusts. EagleWork used an interferometer to mesure a possible distorsion of spacetime, and arrived to a positive repeatable result. But still needs to be confirmed by other experiments.
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga) would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell).
-
Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
monomorphic has done several different design simulations in FEKO already.
One of the better ones was the clover leaf in Roger Shawyer's new design. It preformed extremely well. It's like the one I suggested you look at from ebay for a few dollars.
Shell
I think a clover leaf antenna may have a very similar symmetry to the loop antenna. I'll make a sketch showing the current patterns I suspect to exist. Actually I later found this web page which better addresses this here: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/cloverleaf.php It would seem the radiation null is a bit different from a loop antenna which is interesting. I wonder if it could accidentally excite transverse magnetic modes with the tilted petals. This may be desirable if you want a flexible antenna but may not lock out undesired modes. Edit: I think it can get a larger radius than a loop antenna. Image from webpage (http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/cloverleaf-all-currents.gif)
-
Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
As I stated many times before, P=F*v is the mechanical power the system has and is not to be confused with the input electrical power we were discussing in earlier discussions. In this discussion, I was not discussing anything about input electrical power to an EmDrive. Of course even if the EmDrive electrical power was constant for a constant acceleration, the mechanical power would be velocity dependent and thus observer dependent. My question to you is this, two different observers at different velocities see different powers of the ship. Which is the real power?
I honestly don't even know what you are talking about any more in this post.
You gave an example where there is no electrical power at all, claiming that this does not require increasing energy for increasing velocity (per what the previous post had requested). I showed that you were wrong.
Now you bring up electrical power again, when it has no relevance to the situation. You asked me a question about "different powers of the ship" but I have no idea what this means. Here are some guesses, please let me know which is right so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing:
- 2 people observe the ship has different kinetic energy in different frames
- 2 people see a ship accelerating at constant rate and see its kinetic energy increase in different rates in different frames
- other (please describe)
I have a different response for each of these. The general point you seem to be missing is that conservation of energy does not care what form energy is in, just that it is conserved (within a frame). Some forms of energy are frame independent. When these are converted into a frame dependent form of energy (kinetic) it always involves getting multiple things moving (as conservation of momentum requires anyway). For simplicity say that frame-independent potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in 2 objects A and B. A and B can have different starting values of kinetic energy in different frames. All frames will agree on the delta velocity of each of the objects. They will disagree on the distribution of the added energy between A and B. Some will find that the kinetic energy of A decreases, with that lost energy and the added energy both being added to B. Some will see the exact reverse of that. All frames will agree, however, that if you sum the kinetic energy of A and B before and after the potential energy was added you find the total kinetic energy changes by exactly the amount of potential energy converted into kinetic energy (and any waste such as heat is energy that is again frame-independent).
I worked through the details of this in a previous post, although I was using a specific example of a plane propelling itself by accelerating air that flows past it, the same math applies to the general case described above.
-
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga) would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell).
You are both righ
I agree for the non conclusive tests, because of non hard vacuum.
But, since an interferometer is something very precise, if a new test has to be done, an interferometer test in hard vacuum IMHO is the best candidate.
The idea of accelerometer would be still usefull for DIY test in the air. Even if I am not sure that a positive result could prove anything. But what is the minimal acceleration detected by an affordable accelerometer ?
-
It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others.
-
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga) would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell).
You are both righ
I agree for the non conclusive tests, because of non hard vacuum.
But, since an interferometer is something very precise, if a new test has to be done, an interferometer test in hard vacuum IMHO is the best candidate.
The idea of accelerometer would be still useful for DIY test in the air. Even if I am not sure that a positive result could prove anything. But what is the minimal acceleration detected by an affordable accelerometer ?
No clue if I'm going in the right direction, but here are some links to what seem to be very accurate accelerometers, but not sure if they are suitable for the purpose as they seem more vibration related. However, they are typically piezoelectric sensors and that's a fair bit out of my expertise.
http://www.pcb.com/TestMeasurement/Accelerometers/HiSensitivity
http://www.mmf.de/characteristics.htm#sensitivity (seems to tell how they function)
http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/acceleration-vibration/simple-steps-selecting-right-accelerometer-1557
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3807/en/
Given the skills required for building an EM drive, I would imagine using one of these accelerometers wouldn't be impractical from a skills standpoint. However, I don't have the electronics background to say if using them is practical from a precision standpoint. Though it seems like they wouldn't be able to be used as I had intended, since they have to be mounted to something.
Price wise, looks like they are in the hundreds of dollars range from about $150 to about $1000 depending on what you get and I can't say what would be needed for this purpose (someone want to chime in with the calculations/formula(s) for this?).
-
It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others.
"Assuming flat local spacetime" is the issue. Damping = Gravity, the effective potential creates an accelerated reference frame equivalent to gravity, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The frustum falls along this gradient vector. If there is an acceleration vector, (and you use an geometric interpretation), space-time is not flat. Only the relative potential energy between the position of the frustum and the position of the field mass inside it, as dictated by this acceleration vector, is relevant. Not the momentum of individual photons.
-
When an EmDrive is not acceleration you can use short Rf pulses to measure the 5x cavity fill time TC and the 5x cavity decay time.
It is my understanding that if you do that measurement when the EmDrive accelerates due to the short Rf pulses, the 5x cavity fill time and 5x cavity decay time are shorter than if not accelerating.
The shorter fill and decay times suggest a lower cavity Q during acceleration due to cavity energy being used to do work on mass to cause acceleration.
Doing this measurement allows the energy lost to the cavity during acceleration to be calculated as against energy needed to cause the acceleration.
It is my understand Roger has done these studies and found the energy lost from the cavity during acceleration matches that required to do the measured acceleration.
Just a bit of background information that any theory needs to represent.
-
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others.
"Assuming flat local spacetime" is the issue. Damping = Gravity, the effective potential creates an accelerated reference frame equivalent to gravity, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The frustum falls along this gradient vector. If there is an acceleration vector, (and you use an geometric interpretation), space-time is not flat. Only the relative potential energy between the position of the frustum and the position of the field mass inside it, as dictated by this acceleration vector, is relevant. Not the momentum of individual photons.
You are right. The spacetime is not flat around an accelerating frustrum. Anyway, if it is far enough from distant masses, it means that it becomes asymptotically flat with the distance to the Emdrive, and in that case, with standard physics, the result is the same.
In fact, as it was mentionned earlier by Dr Rodal, in a curved spacetime, you can do interesting things. You can swim in space.
My interpretation is that when the space is curved by a body, any momentum stolen by "swiming in space" is stolen to this body. It is a form of gravity assist.
Theoretically, a probe that "swim in space" could be built, and work in earth orbit, by using the curve of spacetime due to the moon, the sun and the earth. It will get momentum, but this momentum is stolen to the earth and the moon. The system probe+sun+earth+moon will not get momentum.
In my interpretation, the momentum that you can gain because of the curve of spacetime that a probe does by itself is stolen to the spaceprobe itself. It needs an external curving of spacetime to work.
-
Australian IAC congress meeting:
http://www.iac2017.org
Would be an interesting place to do a live EmDrive rotary demo.
Phil
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your post I clipped out above, comes up in one way or another in many of your explanations... And unless at some point some sort of physical interaction with a quantum vacuum (QV).., or some Machian interaction with the mass of the universe as a whole, that either asymmetrically alters the inertia of an EmDrive or its, active or passive interaction with gravitation, how I read the literal intent of the above statement must be accurate!
While I understand your theoretical position in principle, it has been many years since the math was anything near a first language for me, so though I can work my way through it, it is not generally worth the effort. Still I find it difficult to accept that anything happening in an EmDrive is either altering its inertial profile or essentially generating a tidal gravitational variation.., or for that matter any significant interaction with the QV... Though if either or any similar case were to turn out to be the in fact mechanism, it would in my mind be the best of all outcomes... Opening up new physics and advancements in our understanding of both inertia and gravitation.
Still, the clipped (statement) and similar descriptive comments, continue to raise, for me a somewhat different more conservative mechanism, that fits with the general intent, that the frustum pushes against the field inside and the field pushes back against the frustum. And, though what data has been presented shows very small net forces, the net thrust seems to scale theoretically and in model based projections, with the input power and final field density/intensity of the resonant field inside the frustum. An asymmetrically distributed resonating EM field... This provides the first half of any attempt to explain the mechanism, resulting in thrust.
The second part that continues to raise its head in my minds eye is.., and here for simplicity let us assume the resonant MW field is being introduced from a finely tuned source and an antenna, rather than a wave guide or directly attached magnetron... continuing .., the frustum itself acts as the ground plane for the antenna and there is an electric current flowing in the walls and end plates, at the same frequency or very close to the frequency of the MW field inside the frustum. This is not just a matter of theory and model at this point, since rfmwguy posted an autopsy photo of the arching that occurred between one end plate and the frustum walls, in I believe it was his last build. Since that current originates with an interaction between the resonant MW field inside the frustum and the frustum walls, it would be an AC current at or very near the frequency of the resonant frequency, inside the frustum. Any potential difference(s) being the result of the difference in the speed of light inside the cavity and the speed of the current through the frustum walls.
Given this, could not the anomalous force be the result of an interaction between the asymmetric EM field inside the frustum and the EM field associated with the current flow in the frustum walls. This might also explain why TheTraveler's claims that force has been measured differently when the frustum is allowed to move (accelerate) or just set on a scale where it cannot. The dynamics between the two EM fields, would be different as the frustum accelerates, even considering that the interior resonant EM field should update at the speed of light, while changes in the EM field associated with the current through the frustum walls, would update or change at the velocity of the electric current through the conductive wall material.
BTW and again without getting into the math myself, I don't see that the field description you have been presenting would need much modification, other than in interpretation, to be describing an interaction between the two EM fields. You would still be looking at the force potential, as dependent on the relationship in the polarity of the two fields over time and the small difference rate that those two fields change as the frustum moves... changes in the field associated with the current in the frustum walls being dependent on and lagging any changes in the interior resonant EM field.
And yes I know.., I think I raised a question about the effect being an EM field interaction sometime last year.., and it was dismissed. And even if the mechanism were anything along the lines presented above, it would represent at least a new understanding of known physics and would not be as exciting as changes inertia or interactions with or a local creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
-
Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
monomorphic has done several different design simulations in FEKO already.
One of the better ones was the clover leaf in Roger Shawyer's new design. It preformed extremely well. It's like the one I suggested you look at from ebay for a few dollars.
Shell
I will certainly try this. Will take some time, the coming week I have to concentrate on my regular work.
Peter
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your post I clipped out above, comes up in one way or another in many of your explanations... And unless at some point some sort of physical interaction with a quantum vacuum (QV).., or some Machian interaction with the mass of the universe as a whole, that either asymmetrically alters the inertia of an EmDrive or its, active or passive interaction with gravitation, how I read the literal intent of the above statement must be accurate!
While I understand your theoretical position in principle, it has been many years since the math was anything near a first language for me, so though I can work my way through it, it is not generally worth the effort. Still I find it difficult to accept that anything happening in an EmDrive is either altering its inertial profile or essentially generating a tidal gravitational variation.., or for that matter any significant interaction with the QV... Though if either or any similar case were to turn out to be the in fact mechanism, it would in my mind be the best of all outcomes... Opening up new physics and advancements in our understanding of both inertia and gravitation.
Still, the clipped (statement) and similar descriptive comments, continue to raise, for me a somewhat different more conservative mechanism, that fits with the general intent, that the frustum pushes against the field inside and the field pushes back against the frustum. And, though what data has been presented shows very small net forces, the net thrust seems to scale theoretically and in model based projections, with the input power and final field density/intensity of the resonant field inside the frustum. An asymmetrically distributed resonating EM field... This provides the first half of any attempt to explain the mechanism, resulting in thrust.
The second part that continues to raise its head in my minds eye is.., and here for simplicity let us assume the resonant MW field is being introduced from a finely tuned source and an antenna, rather than a wave guide or directly attached magnetron... continuing .., the frustum itself acts as the ground plane for the antenna and there is an electric current flowing in the walls and end plates, at the same frequency or very close to the frequency of the MW field inside the frustum. This is not just a matter of theory and model at this point, since rfmwguy posted an autopsy photo of the arching that occurred between one end plate and the frustum walls, in I believe it was his last build. Since that current originates with an interaction between the resonant MW field inside the frustum and the frustum walls, it would be an AC current at or very near the frequency of the resonant frequency, inside the frustum. Any potential difference(s) being the result of the difference in the speed of light inside the cavity and the speed of the current through the frustum walls.
Given this, could not the anomalous force be the result of an interaction between the asymmetric EM field inside the frustum and the EM field associated with the current flow in the frustum walls. This might also explain why TheTraveler's claims that force has been measured differently when the frustum is allowed to move (accelerate) or just set on a scale where it cannot. The dynamics between the two EM fields, would be different as the frustum accelerates, even considering that the interior resonant EM field should update at the speed of light, while changes in the EM field associated with the current through the frustum walls, would update or change at the velocity of the electric current through the conductive wall material.
BTW and again without getting into the math myself, I don't see that the field description you have been presenting would need much modification, other than in interpretation, to be describing an interaction between the two EM fields. You would still be looking at the force potential, as dependent on the relationship in the polarity of the two fields over time and the small difference rate that those two fields change as the frustum moves... changes in the field associated with the current in the frustum walls being dependent on and lagging any changes in the interior resonant EM field.
And yes I know.., I think I raised a question about the effect being an EM field interaction sometime last year.., and it was dismissed. And even if the mechanism were anything along the lines presented above, it would represent at least a new understanding of known physics and would not be as exciting as changes inertia or interactions with or a local creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
I think you are simply missing the fact that when "the frustum is pushing against the field inside it...", is layman's terms for there are currents flowing in the copper that prevent the field from escaping, thereby generating a balanced force between the field and the copper. If it were not a conductor, there would be no current flowing and the field would pass right trough the walls. It is the image charges and image currents in the copper that keep the field contained. My model is simply that if there is no dissipation, all forces are balanced and there is no thrust. If there is asymmetrical dissipation, it's like "leakage" from the inside to the copper to the outside as heat. That asymmetry produces the acceleration vector.
-
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
But both come to the same conclusion: the photons loose inertial mass while travelling from the big end towards the small end in a tapered cavity, and gain inertial mass while travelling small to big.
McCulloch says this is caused by the Unruh waves difference between big and small ends, that changes photon momentum between the end plates. This is new physics indeed.
Shawyer says it is the guide wavelength variation that changes photon momentum due to the Doppler effect: photons going small towards big end decrease in frequency (redshift) and photons going big to small increase in frequency (blueshift) and has a consequence their inertial mass varies accordingly.
I try to understand what makes Shawyer's statement impossible. What is needed first is answering this couple of questions:
- In a converging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave increase?
- In a diverging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave decrease?
Or even simpler, this unique question:
Does the wavelength of an EM wave depend on the guide wavelength?
...
Please see General-Relativity author Notsosureofit's hypothesis:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator. (to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity)
(http://emdrive.wiki/images/f/fc/00_chart21.jpg)
Graph: example of the force of each mode vs frequency for m = 0 to 10, n = 1 to 5, p = 1 to 3 from the table referenced above.
The three curves represent p=1, p=2 and p=3, where p is the longitudinal wave-pattern mode shape number in the longitudinal direction, for modes TMmnp and TEmnp.
In this case Rs = 0.0794 m, Rb = 0.1397 m, L = 0.2286 m (the dimensions of the truncated cone cavity tested at NASA Eagleworks as reported by Brady et.al.) and Power*QualityFactor = 2*10^6 watts.
For constant geometrical dimensions, and constant quality factor and input power, the asymptotic behavior of thrust is inversely proportional to the cube of the frequency and proportional to the square of X.
Thanks Dr Rodal, I think too the notsosureofit hypothesis is a very good one, especially as it was established in the early days of these threads and is still one of the most accurate theories predicting the measured reaction force of frustums tested up to now.
But it is only one of the best hypotheses among others. My question rather refered to the reality or not of momentum or effective inertial mass variation of photons in a waveguide. Cullen has showed long ago (in 1952) the radiation pressure, measured on a plate placed inside a waveguide, is dependent on the waveguide diameter. More precisely, when the waveguide has a smaller diameter, the wavelength shortens and radiation pressure decreases on the plate, and when the waveguide has a bigger diameter, the wavelength lengthens and radiation pressure is greater on the same plate. I don't think this data has been refuted.
However this study has been quickly dismissed in case of the EmDrive, because Cullen only experimented with open cylindrical waveguides, whereas the EmDrive as a frustum is a tapered truncated cone closed resonant cavity.
It is true that a major difference between an open waveguide and a closed resonant cavity, that has been flagged before here, is in a waveguide there are only travelling waves, whereas in a resonant cavity there are standing waves.
But in the frustum, especially with spherical end plates and a narrow bandwidth RF power source, besides a standing wave there are also travelling waves (from short RF pulses provided by a clean RF power) which travel back and forth between the two reflectors until the EM energy decays completely. To which point a second RF pulse can be generated and the cycle starts over, and so forth. Considering only the short ringing time of those travelling RF pulses inside the frustum, it appears they can be assimilated to the travelling waves studied previously in open waveguides, and the difference previously pointed out becomes not so clearly evident.
Finally, the EM waves studied by Cullen were travelling in straight cylindrical waveguides, whereas the EM pulses travelling back and forth in the EmDrive are guided in a tapered conical wall of continuously varying diameter. That being said, I don't understand why the approximation saying the EmDrive can be considered as a succession of many cylindrical waveguides, shorter and shorter one after the others, should be wrong. I insist "as a first approximation", not intended to calculate precisely anything happening inside the frustum, except qualitatively the effect of a varying guide wavelength on EM waves and their carried momentum.
Now just consider these hypotheses:
1) the EM wave momentum can vary.
2) the EM waves can exchange momentum with the frustum (the EM waves lose momentum while travelling back and forth, in favor of the momentum gained by the frustum).
3) the EM waves decay, and an external energy supply is required to maintain the thrust force.
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
-
....
I think you are simply missing the fact that when "the frustum is pushing against the field inside it...", is layman's terms for there are currents flowing in the copper that prevent the field from escaping, thereby generating a balanced force between the field and the copper. If it were not a conductor, there would be no current flowing and the field would pass right trough the walls. It is the image charges and image currents in the copper that keep the field contained. My model is simply that if there is no dissipation, all forces are balanced and there is no thrust. If there is asymmetrical dissipation, it's like "leakage" from the inside to the copper to the outside as heat. That asymmetry produces the acceleration vector.
....
I clipped my earlier comments from the post for brevity. I tend to run on enough all on my own...
I understand what you are saying about your model. Frankly, the way you have presented it is a large part of why I said I like the way you think... I also have said I would prefer that your model or another that involves any manipulation of the inertial profile or gravitational interaction of a frustum with the "Spacetime" outside of it (or even a localized change inside), would be the best or most exciting discoveries in my life time.
I quoted that isolated phrase, from your post, not as a direct description of your model, but because it reminds me of the way, the two EM fields I attempted to describe might interact..... Which could be in at least two ways that might have some polarized effect. And should be testable. I did not mean to imply any literal interpretation of the phrase or be making any direct comment(s) about your model.
Sometime last year a discussion occurred that involved the Lentz law and dropping a magnet through a copper pipe. Interesting stuff, but I believe it was put to bed and I was not attempting to suggest that as a mechanism here, though the asymmetry of the resonant field inside the frustum could be argued as creating similar and not quite equal dynamics... another discussion that I don't believe would bear fruit.
What I was attempting to describe is that it could be as simple as the fact that the asymmetric design of the frustum, which results in an asymmetric distribution of the resonant EM field inside the frustum, is dynamically, as far as the physical frustum is concerned, a magnetic/electromagnetic field moving inside the frustum. That alone is nothing, but when you add that there is a current generated in the frustum walls, by the presence of the Resonant EM field, (which has been proven by the arching seen in rfmwguy's last build), you wind up with two EM fields. One broadcast into the frustum and the other generated by the current in the frustum walls. If they were out of phase for any reason there would be a push or pull between the two fields.
Since it is highly unlikely that the smaller field due to the current in the walls could actually move or displace the EM field inside the frustum, the push or pull would be felt by the frustum.., EmDrive as a whole.... OR
Even if no significant EM field were generated by the current in the frustum walls, the fact that the current in the frustum walls is the result of an interaction with a (2.4 GHz) EM field, would mean the current itself would be a (2.4 GHz) AC current. At that point again if for any reason the current in the walls were out of phase with the field inside the frustum, there would be a push/pull between the two.... And once again, if the EM field inside the frustum were greater than the potential associated with the current in the walls, the push/pull would wind up as momentum transferred to the EmDrive as a whole.
I am not suggesting this is a Lenz law sort of interaction/effect. The frustum itself should be acting as the ground plane for the broadcast antenna and at the same time since it encloses the broadcast EM field, a receiver antenna of sorts. Part of the initial EM field energy is disipated as heat, and part through the frustum itself acting as a combination ground plane and receiver antenna... And then some part as an anomalous thrust generated by a polarized interaction between the current running through the frustum and the EM field inside the frustum.., a transfer of momentum, measured as thrust, being the result of the asymmetric dynamics and polarization of the EM field(s) and ground plane current.
-
Wonderful discussions on the drive and gravity...
https://xkcd.com/
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/astrophysics.png)
-
according to some researchers you don't need dark matter or any different gravity law to explain the rotation of galaxies, you just have to use the Einstein equations "correctly":
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07491
this discussion goes on since more than 10 years.
-
according to some researchers you don't need dark matter or any different gravity law to explain the rotation of galaxies, you just have to use the Einstein equations "correctly":
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07491
this discussion goes on since more than 10 years.
And there's the theory of Mike McCulloch (MiHsC), in which even predictions about the EMDrive are made. See, e.g., http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.nl/2014/01/mihsc-101.html
-
Nice article with Prof Woodward's latest thoughts on the EMDrive.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
Basically, he saw the paper that went in for review, and it was apparently only accepted for review after they were forced to cut all the impossible theories like Shawyer's Radiation Pressure theory and White's QVF theory from it, limiting it to physical observations only and no theories to try and explain it.
According to Prof Woodward, accidental Mach Effects being generated is the only way to explain the results, if they are indeed real.
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow.
-
Speaking of theories that have been cut, who among us has not heard of Heim Theory and Extended Heim Theory?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7678.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7678.0)
In a nutshell, Heim postulated a "World" a term which was used to describe everything that exists, initially 6-D but extended to 10-12D. Basic Heim theory was quite successful in mathematically calculating the mass of the known elementary particles, I have the Mathematica code to do these calculations laying around somewhere. This world is made of 6-D "cubes" on the order of a Planck length in size.
I bring this up because Heim Theory postulates an expanding universe (World) based on the cubes dividing as the energy density of the World becomes more diffuse, and further, postulates a space warp engine that re-expands the cubes locally giving faster than light travel in the reference universe (ours).
Because the energy density in the EM drive frustum and other resonant cavities gets pretty intense I would interpret Heim theory as saying that the confined resonating energy causes the basic grid of the "World" to re-expand by some number of doubling of the Planck length. That re-expanding of the grid shrinks the number of cells separating adjacent points making them closer together in the "World" inside the frustum. A light ray or particle traveling through this shrunken space would appear to exceed the speed of light but it would not when COM was considered piecewise through the universes which the particle or ray traveled.
Before you blast me out of orbit, note that I don't seriously expect to defend Heim theory, it has been bandied about for nearly 40 years and has neither been accepted or killed. Others are (last I heard) still seriously working the theory. But it cannot be truthfully denied that the basic theory did successfully predict the masses of all the known elementary particles before anyone else had a math model, and even though the measured error bars of the masses have moved, the theory still gives the same good answers that it gave in the "80's. (Tightening error bars and improved measurements presents a moving target for a static math code based on older values of input physical constants that have also changed.)
-
Another possible test scenario for the EM Drive. How about two highly accurate synchronized atomic clocks with one setup near an working EM Drive for a while and the other one moved far away. Compare times after a few hours. I don't know why but I have a hunch that might reveal a clue.
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow.
It is not only about a local interaction, it is about an interaction that doesn't involve at all the rest of the universe.
Supposing that I weight 80kg, and I am a magician. I move my magic wand and says Abracadabra. Then, a white rabbit appears. It is weighting 3kg, and I still weight 80kg.
If I have stolen the rabbit to the rest of the universe, or if I have stolen 3kg of matter in the rest of the universe, CoE is still safe.
If I did it without interacting with the rest of the universe (anything else than the Emship counts as the rest of the universe) it violates CoE, because I have made mater (what is equivalent to energy) from nowhere.
If the Emdrive works with a field that is only generated by the Emdrive, and that doesn't interact with the rest of the universe, supposing constant thrust for constant power imput, it is a way of getting energy. CoE means that all energy gained by a system has to be taken somewhere in the rest of the universe. So CoE is violated.
-
...
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome. :)
As far I understand the idea is that when a particle accelerates rightwards at a rate a, the left part of the universe is hidden from its view at a distance c2/a, creating a push due to the well known and experimentally tested Casimir effect. McCulloch explained this with the figure below from https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
The assumption is that the photon mass (better let’s consider instead the equivalent mass of the energy density of the photons) is accelerating when the energy density center bounces inside the frustum cavity.
EmDrive is an open system, as everything in our universe, a car, a Faraday cage, or just our eyes looking at the distant stars. We cannot isolate us from the rest of universe, because Special Relativity states that our “border” is just our past and future light cones. In this sense, Dennis Sciama proposed in 1953 that 99% of local inertia arises from matter further away than 108 light years from us. This is the Mach Principle, long pursued by Einstein… see pag. 39 of his seminal work “On the origin of inertia”:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1953MNRAS.113...34S/0000039.000.html
As engineer I would say all this speculations could be true if some electromagnetic radiation of an Extremely Low Frequency is really received from both sides of the universe. Such a low frequency that the period is in fact longer than 10e8 years, and this electromagnetic radiation could be what MiHsC counts as Unruh radiation, but cannot be detected because the rate of variation is so slow that spans all our available observation time.
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/scale/frequency.html
There is no limit on the low frequency side of the electromagnetic spectrum we all studied in our physics books, but nobody has explored this as far I know by doing some recent search in the WoS and ArXiv. This incredible low frequency radiation on the range of the femtohertzs could in fact, if received in a coherent way that sums up over any object at rest, be responsible of the inertia we perceive.
-
...
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome. :)
As far I understand the idea is that when a particle accelerates rightwards at a rate a, the left part of the universe is hidden from its view at a distance c2/a, creating a push due to the well known and experimentally tested Casimir effect. McCulloch explained this with the figure below from https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
The assumption is that the photon mass (better let’s consider instead the equivalent mass of the energy density of the photons) is accelerating when the energy density center bounces inside the frustum cavity.
EmDrive is an open system, as everything in our universe, a car, a Faraday cage, or just our eyes looking at the distant stars. We cannot isolate us from the rest of universe, because Special Relativity states that our “border” is just our past and future light cones. In this sense, Dennis Sciama proposed in 1953 that 99% of local inertia arises from matter further away than 108 light years from us. This is the Mach Principle, long pursued by Einstein… see pag. 39 of his seminal work “On the origin of inertia”:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1953MNRAS.113...34S/0000039.000.html
As engineer I would say all this speculations could be true if some electromagnetic radiation of an Extremely Low Frequency is really received from both sides of the universe. Such a low frequency that the period is in fact longer than 10e8 years, and this electromagnetic radiation could be what MiHsC counts as Unruh radiation, but cannot be detected because the rate of variation is so slow that spans all our available observation time.
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/scale/frequency.html
There is no limit on the low frequency side of the electromagnetic spectrum we all studied in our physics books. This incredible low frequency radiation on the range of the femtohertzs could in fact, if received in a coherent way that sums up over any object at rest, be responsible of the inertia we perceive.
Thanks very much for the detailed answer. I understand why, in MiHsC, the frustrum is interacting with the rest of the universe. But I still don't understand how it translates for the rest of the universe. What happen to it ?
For example, for a gravity assist aroud earth, the probe steal Kinetic energy to the earth, and the earth is going a bit slower around the sun.
I would like something like "All photons are redshifted a little in the rest of the universe" or " speeds of some corpses are affected". Not these ones, of course, but something that help me to understand from where the energy is stolen.
-
Well, I just try to summarize proposals of Dr. McCulloch and others, so as far I understand the net effect is that the generalization of CoE and CoM laws should be seen in the system as a whole.
In this sense, the invariant that is really conserved is the Energy + Information contained in the observable light cone seen by the radiation confined in the frustum. So the answer to the question of what happens to the rest of the universe, or from where the energy is stolen, is better answered if we read this book
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p752
Dr. Laurent Nottale proposes in page 528:
"...that, ultimately, the concept of mass disappears from physics and be replaced by a relative combination of the interdistances between all bodies in the Universe"
and in the same page:
"Actually, we discover an even more profound fact: the length carries the fundamental meaning and the mass is only a derived concept"
If we start to conceptualize physics with these tools, EmDrive is just a machine to glide in the relativity of scales and information horizons. That is, you exchange energy with information, limited only by Landauer Principle, this is the conservation law that really applies here and not the naïve CoM and CoE laws we are taught in Newtonian physics: "Another way of phrasing Landauer's principle is that if an observer loses information about a physical system, the observer loses the ability to extract work from that system"
-
Another possible test scenario for the EM Drive. How about two highly accurate synchronized atomic clocks with one setup near an working EM Drive for a while and the other one moved far away. Compare times after a few hours. I don't know why but I have a hunch that might reveal a clue.
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
What is going on is due to asymmetry in the "rate of decay time" of the energy, inside the frustum. Not the rate at which clocks tick.
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow.
It is not only about a local interaction, it is about an interaction that doesn't involve at all the rest of the universe.
Supposing that I weight 80kg, and I am a magician. I move my magic wand and says Abracadabra. Then, a white rabbit appears. It is weighting 3kg, and I still weight 80kg.
If I have stolen the rabbit to the rest of the universe, or if I have stolen 3kg of matter in the rest of the universe, CoE is still safe.
If I did it without interacting with the rest of the universe (anything else than the Emship counts as the rest of the universe) it violates CoE, because I have made mater (what is equivalent to energy) from nowhere.
If the Emdrive works with a field that is only generated by the Emdrive, and that doesn't interact with the rest of the universe, supposing constant thrust for constant power imput, it is a way of getting energy. CoE means that all energy gained by a system has to be taken somewhere in the rest of the universe. So CoE is violated.
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
-
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Thanks for the explanation. I apologize if this has been asked (and answered) before, but how does this get around the over-unity argument? If the "thrust" is initiated from inside the frustum and does not depend on its movement relative to the rest of the universe, then you get constant thrust and linear power consumption but quadratic kinetic energy increase in an external inertial ref frame. At some point the obtained kinetic energy will exceed the consumed electric power.
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASe/imgmec/inecol.gif)
(http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/39/car-accident.jpg)
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/conservation-of-energy-practice-160215061500/95/conservation-of-energy-practice-22-638.jpg?cb=1455516926)
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
[/quote
So, if the photons were to push on the small end and return toward the large end to be deflected at 45 degrees by a sort of fresnel baffle towaad the sides to be absorbed (I don't know .. stealth fighter paint :-) and transformed into heat one would get this positive momentum .. .. But this would be like an "internal" photon rocket??
-
...
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient! :) It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder. :)
-
Nice article with Prof Woodward's latest thoughts on the EMDrive.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
Basically, he saw the paper that went in for review, and it was apparently only accepted for review after they were forced to cut all the impossible theories like Shawyer's Radiation Pressure theory and White's QVF theory from it, limiting it to physical observations only and no theories to try and explain it.
According to Prof Woodward, accidental Mach Effects being generated is the only way to explain the results, if they are indeed real.
As a drive builder and an independent researcher I must keep open to all theories and this has been my mantra throughout my testing. I've specifically constructed a modular designed drive that could support, or not, any of the current theories and this includes The Mach effect.
Dr. Woodward has, like he stated, several independent labs support his findings of a very tiny thrust. Not much different than the EagleWorks team although the EW team results seem higher.
Just to say that what Q-Thrusters or EMDrives are seeing the Mach effect without an advanced theory that encompasses both designs is speculation. The same can be said for Dr. White's theory. The only thing that can be stated is both are seeing data from a thrust anomaly.
Paul March is still correct when he stated "And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain..."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1440938#msg1440938
Also a refresher for what some were chatting about earlier:
http://agni.phys.iit.edu/~vpa/electromagnetic.html
-
...
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient! :) It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder. :)
It is efficient if it it more efficient than a photon rocket.
-
Others are (last I heard) still seriously working the theory. But it cannot be truthfully denied that the basic theory did successfully predict the masses of all the known elementary particles before anyone else had a math model, and even though the measured error bars of the masses have moved, the theory still gives the same good answers that it gave in the "80's. (Tightening error bars and improved measurements presents a moving target for a static math code based on older values of input physical constants that have also changed.)
I suppose you mean the work from Droescher and Hauser?
http://www.hpcc-space.de/
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
One must measure and report results of:
- EM frequency value along z-axis in the frustum to show if it is constant or not
- radiation pressure on both ends (flat and spherical) to show if it is different
- radiation pressure on side walls for flat and spherical ends to show if it has an effective contribution.
This has never been done (alas there is no public record). All we have his Cullen's 1952 report dealing with open waveguides. The same tests are needed today with closed tapered cavities to definitively settle the issue.
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
One must measure and report results of:
- EM frequency value along z-axis in the frustum to show if it is constant or not
- radiation pressure on both ends (flat and spherical) to show if it is different
- radiation pressure on side walls for flat and spherical ends to show if it has an effective contribution.
This has never been done (alas there is no public record). All we have his Cullen's 1952 report dealing with open waveguides. The same tests are needed today with closed tapered cavities to definitively settle the issue.
Simulators like FEKO show that the guide wavelength increases as the tapered waveguide diameter decreases as attached.
Existing microwave engineering equations predict this increasing guide wavelength as the diameter reduces as attached.
Roger's equations are based on using these equations to predict the end plate guide wavelength and group velocity and from that using Cullen's equations the value of the radiation pressure. BTW one end of the waveguide Cullen used had the end plate that he measured the radiation pressure on. His later papers showed how to use this effect to measure the energy in a cavity from the radiation pressure, which is increased as Q increases. It is behind a paywall, so can't share it.
On this issue of guide wavelength increasing as diameter decreases there is no doubt as both FEKO and microwave engineering equations predict it.
I plan on doing a series of experiments to directly measure the radiation pressure on the end plates and on the frustum.
-
FWIW, emdrives.com currently redirects to the latest post in the latest page in this thread 8.
www.emdrive.com works fine for me.
-
My pet theory is that the emdrive lacks translational symmetry and therefore is not bound by certain conservation laws.
CofM is conserved.
The EmDrive and it's accelerative loads GAINED momentum is sourced from the internal EmWave's LOST momentum. This is seen to the cavity as another per cycle energy loss that adds to the eddy current loss. So when accelerating, the cavity Q drops as there is another cavity energy loss that does work on accelerating the total mass.
This has been measured.
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
Maybe there is TT.
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I've built and designed for this mix of ideas for the last year with a frustum shape, a dielectric insert, PZT inserts, parametric amplification, antenna designs and secret squirrel sauces, taking the best from some of the best engineers and physicists in this field. I'll not take anything from them but uniformly applaud their efforts to dream.
Am I on the right track? Only time and testing will tell. HA! What else could I be doing? Sitting in my hot tub getting more wrinkles? Well, maybe not as my hot tub broke and instead of getting another one I've put that money towards my new lab. I still can use gofundme help if anyone is interested, my hot tub will wait.
My Best,
Shell
This was posted on another site
http://tinyurl.com/z5ypcdh
ZephirAWT 1 point 12 hours ago*
Jim Woodward wildly opposes Shawyer's and Harold White's theories, but he himself promotes an idea, that reaction-less drive creates a sparse (benign) worm hole for its motion. But if you read the White's work, you'll realize, that the formation of warp field and worm holes belongs into crucial part of his quantum vacuum theory and he is even trying to detect it experimentally with Juday-White's interferometer. Shortly after this NASA released a memo stating essentially "No we're not studying Warp Drives" in an effort to reign in the media's collective meltdown.
This may serve as a clue, that the both theories may be actually more close each other, than these guys are willing to admit: the Woodward's Mach effect based theory may be simply intrinsic perspective of the Harold White's one: the change in inertial mass is caused just with introduction of warp field into vacuum.
Illustratively speaking: once you make the vacuum around yourself more sparse and less dense (by changing the ratio of transverse and longitudinal waves in it), then your inertia will increase accordingly and vice-versa. We even have macroscopic analogy for it in gravitational anomalies observed during solar eclipses or even planetary conjunctions (so-called the Allais effect). Dense aether model explains it with preferred shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum with collinear massive bodies (i.e. like sorta an analogy of enforcement of tsunami waves within island archipelagos).
enforcement of longitudinal waves with obstacles
Which perspective may be more relevant may depend on character of experimental device. Mach drive of Woodward is essentially solid state device for which the inertial effects may be more relevant, whereas the EMDrive of Shawyer represents rather hollow cavity filled with warp field. But at the moment, when we would equip the EMDrive with insert of high dielectric constant (which Shawyer and others is also testing), then the Shawyer drive would converge to Woodward drive (which is also utilizing high dielectric constant materials) in rather seamless way.
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
Maybe there is TT.
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I've built and designed for this mix of ideas for the last year with a frustum shape, a dielectric insert, PZT inserts, parametric amplification, antenna designs and secret squirrel sauces, taking the best from some of the best engineers and physicists in this field. I'll not take anything from them but uniformly applaud their efforts to dream.
Am I on the right track? Only time and testing will tell. HA! What else could I be doing? Sitting in my hot tub getting more wrinkles? Well, maybe not as my hot tub broke and instead of getting another one I've put that money towards my new lab. I still can use gofundme help if anyone is interested, my hot tub will wait.
My Best,
Shell
This was posted on another site
http://tinyurl.com/z5ypcdh
ZephirAWT 1 point 12 hours ago*
Jim Woodward wildly opposes Shawyer's and Harold White's theories, but he himself promotes an idea, that reaction-less drive creates a sparse (benign) worm hole for its motion. But if you read the White's work, you'll realize, that the formation of warp field and worm holes belongs into crucial part of his quantum vacuum theory and he is even trying to detect it experimentally with Juday-White's interferometer. Shortly after this NASA released a memo stating essentially "No we're not studying Warp Drives" in an effort to reign in the media's collective meltdown.
This may serve as a clue, that the both theories may be actually more close each other, than these guys are willing to admit: the Woodward's Mach effect based theory may be simply intrinsic perspective of the Harold White's one: the change in inertial mass is caused just with introduction of warp field into vacuum.
Illustratively speaking: once you make the vacuum around yourself more sparse and less dense (by changing the ratio of transverse and longitudinal waves in it), then your inertia will increase accordingly and vice-versa. We even have macroscopic analogy for it in gravitational anomalies observed during solar eclipses or even planetary conjunctions (so-called the Allais effect). Dense aether model explains it with preferred shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum with collinear massive bodies (i.e. like sorta an analogy of enforcement of tsunami waves within island archipelagos).
enforcement of longitudinal waves with obstacles
Which perspective may be more relevant may depend on character of experimental device. Mach drive of Woodward is essentially solid state device for which the inertial effects may be more relevant, whereas the EMDrive of Shawyer represents rather hollow cavity filled with warp field. But at the moment, when we would equip the EMDrive with insert of high dielectric constant (which Shawyer and others is also testing), then the Shawyer drive would converge to Woodward drive (which is also utilizing high dielectric constant materials) in rather seamless way.
Have yet to see any theory that predicts the small to big static Thrust force that Roger, EW and myself have measured. Plus from Roger's video on the rotary test rig the dynamic accelerative Reaction force generation is in the other direction.
Follow the DATA, Theory be DAMNED unless it can explain ALL the experimental data.
BTW would enjoy doing an analysis of ANY of your experimental data, the test setups you used to measure the force and the direction of the force. It really doesn't have to be polished, just something to work on would be very interesting.
-
...
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient! :) It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder. :)
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
There is not a strong possibility that all are correct, since there is no data to suggest that different effects are occurring. Also there is no possibility that Shawyer's theory is correct, because it is inconsistent with itself no matter how much you deny basic algebra.
My pet theory is that the emdrive lacks translational symmetry and therefore is not bound by certain conservation laws.
CofM is conserved.
The EmDrive and it's accelerative loads GAINED momentum is sourced from the internal EmWave's LOST momentum. This is seen to the cavity as another per cycle energy loss that adds to the eddy current loss. So when accelerating, the cavity Q drops as there is another cavity energy loss that does work on accelerating the total mass.
This has been measured.
Conservation of Momentum is broken in Shawyer's theory, there are many ways to see this, the most basic being the part of the theory where the momentum of the emWave changes without interacting with anything. And if you allow it to interact with the sidewalls, then you will just get exactly what is needed to cancel the imbalance in radiation pressure from the front and back plates.
Have yet to see any theory that predicts the small to big static Thrust force that Roger, EW and myself have measured. Plus from Roger's video on the rotary test rig the dynamic accelerative Reaction force generation is in the other direction.
You have not shared the details of your experiments, there are issues with Shawyer's experiments (and insufficient data released for replecation, etc), both you and Shawyer have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the definition of the word force, so that weakens that evidence. Your reference to EW data is to their unreleased data, so I won't be specific, but you are misrepresenting their results to force them into your preconceived notions of what you want to see.
If you want to dispute the part where I said you don't know what a force is, then you should start by answering those 2 questions I have kept asking you to answer.
Follow the DATA, Theory be DAMNED unless it can explain ALL the experimental data.
Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.)
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
What does your theory predict with respect to Shawyer's 2nd generation emdrive claims?
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere.
-
Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.)
Experimental data that measured a non dielectric static force direction small to big
1) Roger's Cu Experimental EmDrive on a scale
2) Roger's Cu Demonstrator EmDrive on a scale
3) EW's Cu frustum on a very stiff torsion pendulum
4) EW's Al frustum on a balance beam with a scale
5) My Cu frustum on a scale
ALL 5 measured a static force that was directed small to big. There was no apparent something to push on. The small to big force and direction just appears when the non dielectric frustum is filled with Rf at the resonant freq.
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
https://youtu.be/wBtk6xWDrwY
plus review the experimental data of the non dielectric force that was generated small to big.
Have you accepted the EmDrive can generate a P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) force?
-
Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.)
Experimental data that measured a non dielectric static force direction small to big
1) Roger's Cu Experimental EmDrive on a scale
2) Roger's Cu Demonstrator EmDrive on a scale
3) EW's Cu frustum on a very stiff torsion pendulum
4) EW's Al frustum on a balance beam with a scale
5) My Cu frustum on a scale
ALL 5 measured a static force that was directed small to big. There was no apparent something to push on. The small to big force and direction just appears when the non dielectric frustum is filled with Rf at the resonant freq.
Shawyer's theory does not predict the observed results that go in the other direction (mangling Newton's third law is not a prediction). Also, you seem to have missed part of my last post that explains the issues with using that list in the way that you are:
You have not shared the details of your experiments, there are issues with Shawyer's experiments (and insufficient data released for replecation, etc), both you and Shawyer have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the definition of the word force, so that weakens that evidence. Your reference to EW data is to their unreleased data, so I won't be specific, but you are misrepresenting their results to force them into your preconceived notions of what you want to see.
If you want to dispute the part where I said you don't know what a force is, then you should start by answering those 2 questions I have kept asking you to answer.
-
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I'm a bit wary of the aesthetic appeal of theories... after fifty years of entertaining the idea of Super Symmetry, it's been all but disproven by experimental results. It was an appealing rabbit hole, but it hasn't gone anywhere in the end. :-\
-
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I'm a bit wary of the aesthetic appeal of theories... after fifty years of entertaining the idea of Super Symmetry, it's been all but disproven by experimental results. It was an appealing rabbit hole, but it hasn't gone anywhere in the end. :-\
Me too and when every theory has its holes it can't but help to raise questions.
You know, after all the data is captured it might not fit into anyone's rabbit hole. It maybe we are seeing something new here. And it could all just point out to a weird action in Lorentz forces or moon phases. I'll admit this RotoSequence, that this is a very very tough problem and I appreciate everyone's help.
This site is truly a hotbed, a hotbed of mind numbing reality, thoughts and ideas.
My Best,
Shell
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere.
I've already gone over this many, many times. Please, take some time to understand my equations and my theory. Don't just respond to each post as an independent entity. All my posts regarding theory are to be taken in conjunction with all my previous posts and equations.
I've already explained, with equations, how there is an accelerated reference frame created inside the frustum. The accelerated reference frame alone will not produce thrust. In conjunction with the accelerated frame, we need a counter-mass to balance the force and momentum gained by the frustum. In order to do that, "some" mass must escape "the cavity", not the frustum, to break the equilibrium in each direction. Energy escapes from the cavity by heating the copper asymmetrically. The two combined cause an unbalance force, that allows the frustum to react and move.
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
What does your theory predict with respect to Shawyer's 2nd generation emdrive claims?
I think it probably works pretty well, if the Q is as high as we expect it to be. I don't have predictions without knowing the dissipation inside the frustum. I'm still trying to quantify it to the dimensions of the cavity. Losses as a function of the cavity dimensions is not easy for me to figure out.
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere.
I've already gone over this many, many times. Please, take some time to understand my equations and my theory. Don't just respond to each post as an independent entity. All my posts regarding theory are to be taken in conjunction with all my previous posts and equations.
I've already explained, with equations, how there is an accelerated reference frame created inside the frustum. The accelerated reference frame alone will not produce thrust. In conjunction with the accelerated frame, we need a counter-mass to balance the force and momentum gained by the frustum. In order to do that, "some" mass must escape "the cavity", not the frustum, to break the equilibrium in each direction. Energy escapes from the cavity by heating the copper asymmetrically. The two combined cause an unbalance force, that allows the frustum to react and move.
I have not understood the equations you have posted, because I don't know what any of the variables mean. Equations on their own don't mean anything without the variables being correlated to something physical, and if you ever did that, then I missed that post.
I am still not seeing what is different in your theory from standard physics, and if there is nothing new, then you aren't getting anything better than a photon rocket.
-
FYI:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/11/atomic-beltway-could-solve-problems-cosmic-gravity
-
I've already gone over this many, many times. Please, take some time to understand my equations and my theory. Don't just respond to each post as an independent entity. All my posts regarding theory are to be taken in conjunction with all my previous posts and equations.
I've already explained, with equations, how there is an accelerated reference frame created inside the frustum. The accelerated reference frame alone will not produce thrust. In conjunction with the accelerated frame, we need a counter-mass to balance the force and momentum gained by the frustum. In order to do that, "some" mass must escape "the cavity", not the frustum, to break the equilibrium in each direction. Energy escapes from the cavity by heating the copper asymmetrically. The two combined cause an unbalance force, that allows the frustum to react and move.
I have not understood the equations you have posted, because I don't know what any of the variables mean. Equations on their own don't mean anything without the variables being correlated to something physical, and if you ever did that, then I missed that post.
I am still not seeing what is different in your theory from standard physics, and if there is nothing new, then you aren't getting anything better than a photon rocket.
These are NOTES and not a well written paper, but all the terms are defined for you. You should be able to follow the equations now. I have more notes, but these are the part that lead up to the prediction of thrust.
Edit: Note: The thrust equation at the end, depends on the Neper frequency. This is [resistance x capacitance]-1.
If we assume this time period to be proportional to the diameter of the frustum, then the time-independent part of this equation reduces to @Notsosureofit's thrust formula. Where, the gradient derivative is expressed as the difference between two potentials.
-
Guys, dumb question here;
Has anyone looked at one of these devices with an infrared camera during operation? If so, could someone direct me to the pictures?
-
Guys, dumb question here;
Has anyone looked at one of these devices with an infrared camera during operation? If so, could someone direct me to the pictures?
IIRC, Eagleworks and RFMWguy are the only known EM Drive builders to have taken and released infrared images. There's not much to be gleaned from RFMWguy's work in the infrared channels, but Eagleworks' high surface currents allowed resonance mode verification and cross-reference with simulation.
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum?
-
Has anyone considered very light sterile neutrino pair production as a thrust mechanism? If sterile neutrinos exist with rest mass less than half of the RF photon energy then pairs could be produced by interactions with atomic nuclei of thruster walls or internal components. This would conserve momentum and energy as the sterile neutrinos would escape with half the generated/converted momentum while the atoms of the walls retain the remaining (opposite direction) momentum resulting in thrust. If the thruster photon energy is significantly higher than twice the sterile neutrino rest mass the momentum transfer of each individual pair production event would be very efficient. The overall efficiency would be limited by the reaction cross section, cavity Q and how well you can focus the net scattering angle. While active neutrinos would also easily escape the thruster walls without interaction they are excluded by their expected rest masses (>10^-5 eV) being far too large for the photon energies of these experiments to generate pairs.
The reason this is more efficient than photon emission alone is that the energy/momentum ratio of the input photon is converted to a different energy/momentum ratio by the pair production process. Another way to look at it is you are converting input photons to an extremely light reaction mass and then expelling it from the cavity.
This effect would scale linearly with Q (if the cross section of the interaction is small) and input power. The effect would likely be enhanced by using materials with high-Z atoms. The effect would likely be further enhanced by using different wall materials: High-Z materials on particular surfaces and low-Z on others to control the net scattering angle. Gold/Aluminum would be an obvious High/Low Z choice for a microwave thruster. Thrust direction would depend on net scattering angle and resulting recoil direction.
Some experiments to explore this theory:
- try gold plated end cap at one end, aluminum at the other
- try gold plated side walls with at least one aluminum end cap.
- try a rectangular non-tapered thruster with gold and aluminum end caps.
- gold plate the entire inside of a copper thruster known to generate thrust and see if thrust efficiency has improved (after adjusting for improved Q).
- Use a spectrum analyzer to search for unexpected signal peaks not related to the input frequency (or signal generator internal frequency) harmonics. While there is no guarantee that pairs would annihilate near the experiment, if they did in significant numbers detection of those photons would both confirm the pair production process as well as indicate the masses of the particles involved.
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum?
That is one way to look at it, yes. My thrust equation can be put into T/P = 1/v, where v is the group velocity.
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
-
anyone willing to entertain the frustum is creating dilithium crystals somehow? just sayin.
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum?
That is one way to look at it, yes. My thrust equation can be put into T/P = 1/v, where v is the group velocity.
Thanks. I've often wondered about that possibility myself. If such a slow photon were to exist, it should provide a constant thrust at a constant power as standard photons do. It would solve CoM issues but I suspect people will still have CoE issues.
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
But why bother calling it quantum gravity which refers to hypothetical graviton particles and a whole different kind of invented math. It really looks more like a classical theory which works for me.
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
The shape is very different, like a pancake.
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
The shape is very different, like a pancake.
(https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/spacegif22.gif)
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
But why bother calling it quantum gravity which refers to hypothetical graviton particles and a whole different kind of invented math. It really looks more like a classical theory which works for me.
Because the equilibrium condition between matter and vacuum is a process of QED. There is no classical equivalent for it. The closest would be thermal equilibrium, but when in equilibrium with the Zero-point field, that's not the preferred way to look at it, for me anyway.
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
To be honest, Verlinde's theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me because he uses the Unruh temperature, but then again neither does Hawking-Bekenstein's entropy theory, for the same reasoning.
In my model, temperature would go to "zero" at the event horizon of a black hole. The Unruh temperature does not go to zero there, which doesn't make sense because all motion is critically damped. The temperature should be zero, by definition.
In my model, I provide a specific Lagrangian density. Verlinde does not, and so Kobakhidze uses this against him to construct a Hamiltonian to prove it doesn't work. That trick won't work with my model, because I've already defined the proper Lagrangian.
Kobakhidze criticizes the model because the commutation relationships would be broken. In my model, the commutation relationships are "preserved" by the equilibrium condition between matter and vacuum, without which as Milonni puts it, "...the electron would spiral into the nucleus." Verlinde's model attempts to make "space-time" an emergent property of the theory. Whereas, in my model, space is what is measured with a ruler and time is what is measured with a clock.
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761)
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
If it is spontaneous ... it is an entropic event .( Isn't "force" a pre GR concept?) The fallen object now sitting on the ground has achieved a lower level in its pursuit of ever slower time. Next, it could fall into a well... later, with Earth, into a black hole... Gravity is an entropic well.
In common language I would say that things tend to exist more where the rate of time is slower.
If we take the rate of time as "per second" or 1/T, a slower time rate means a larger denominator T and, consequently, a larger corresponding "space" in order to keep C constant. In other words, the object falls into larger space which is what entropy is all about.
-
@WarpTech:
While looking for Heim's prediction of the expanding universe I happened to bump into this:
There are some empirical predictions of Heim theory which can in principle be experimentally verified, but this has not been achieved to date. These include
Predictions for the masses of neutrinos, and
Predictions for the conversion of photons into the so-called "gravito-photons" resulting in a measurable force
There wasn't any more information on that page so linking it won't help, but I wonder if you have an idea of what "gravito-photons" might be?
Heim was brilliant and nearly blind. He worked his theory up in his head and dictated it to his wife. When I look at the math it is instant "cross-eyes" for me because the math is not fed with a spoon, rather with a ladle. I add this because folks shouldn't think he was stupid, far from it.
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
...
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
Perhaps revisiting our esteemed X_Ray's previous suggestion of using a pre-filter structure to help clean the output from a magnetron would be an appropriate add-on to Zellerium's latest proposal?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079
That'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/z7b4lam
http://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.html
http://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php
(https://www.comsol.com/model/image/12737/big.png)
-
@WarpTech:
While looking for Heim's prediction of the expanding universe I happened to bump into this:
There are some empirical predictions of Heim theory which can in principle be experimentally verified, but this has not been achieved to date. These include
Predictions for the masses of neutrinos, and
Predictions for the conversion of photons into the so-called "gravito-photons" resulting in a measurable force
There wasn't any more information on that page so linking it won't help, but I wonder if you have an idea of what "gravito-photons" might be?
Heim was brilliant and nearly blind. He worked his theory up in his head and dictated it to his wife. When I look at the math it is instant "cross-eyes" for me because the math is not fed with a spoon, rather with a ladle. I add this because folks shouldn't think he was stupid, far from it.
I have not read Heim's work, at least not in my recent memory, but what you've said so far sounds familiar.
In my model, if there is such a thing as a particle which couples gravity, it would be a pair of complex-conjugate photons, having average <0> electric field, a combined orbital angular momentum of 2*hbar, and possesses a small magnetic field. The particles are generated by the partial reflection of the outgoing photons of an EM field, back toward the source. In terms of waves, it is the superposition of the outgoing wave with its incoming complex conjugate reflection. I don't know if this holds water, it's just conjecture but it has the right effect on the vacuum to couple gravity.
i.e., Classically, at the source;
Increased magnetic flux is equivalent to u0 => K*u0
Decreased electric flux is equivalent to 1/e0 => 1/K*e0
Where u0 and e0 are vacuum permeability and permittivity, exactly what we would get from such a superposition, resulting in a speed of light which is c/K, where K is the refractive index.
Also, my friend Ricc came up with a pair of algebraic equations, whereby you input the expected mass and radius of a particle, such as the electron or the proton, and it will spit out the mass and radius of ALL the other particles, including neutrinos, as a function of an integer harmonic number. This model was based on a conjecture I made that; particles are sub-harmonics of some super-high vacuum cut-off frequency mode. This model derives the variable cut-off modes for each particle. I can't say that it is "physically" correct since there is no fundamental theory behind it, no geometry other than a spherical volume of energy, but it is a mathematical tool with which to make astoundingly accurate predictions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjijarr7ds9j0pb/EGM%20Harmonic%20Representation%20of%20Particles.pdf?dl=0
Todd
-
Very impressive Todd. Of course I didn't study it well enough to "Know," but it looks like I could if I wanted to take the time. That is a major step toward usability.
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Can very well be a usable setup. If you carefully study the forces between the horn antennas with a dummy load with more or less the same characteristics as the frustum.
-
Am considering purchase of Niobium sheet (1 mm) where I could sell of amounts not used to those who would be interested in purchasing various pieces at my cost only. (no charge for shipping etc.) If any NSF members are interested, please let me know as it would affect what I might purchase. FL
BTW 1 mm is just being thrown out there ....thinner or thicker might be preferred by most of y'all.
Sounds exotic, FL. But what are you going to use it for? A superconducting cavity?
Peter
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
...
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
Perhaps revisiting our esteemed X_Ray's previous suggestion of using a pre-filter structure to help clean the output from a magnetron would be an appropriate add-on to Zellerium's latest proposal?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079
That'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/z7b4lam
http://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.html
http://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php
(https://www.comsol.com/model/image/12737/big.png)
A prefilter might be a good idea. The cavity itself is a bandpass filter and if I'm coupling via waveguide then an iris opening would be the primary rejector of all frequencies outside the bandwidth. Thus to minimize heating onboard the test article you could use preliminary irises to filter before the sending horn.
However that might be bad idea given the cavity frequency drift expected with sheet metal might be on the order of the magnetron bandwidth (especially if I'm using kW's). I suppose if the prefilters were adjustable that would be ideal, but isn't that more or less what a three stub tuner would do?
And Peter, interesting idea!
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
If the scale is electronic, I would be concerned that leakage from high-power microwaves would throw off its readings.
-
Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0308060v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser
In 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
-
Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0308060v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser
In 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Ah, klystrons… high power, narrow frequency and stable output, at once! My favorite ;)
I don't understand why nobody plans to try klystrons (as well as TWTAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling-wave_tube) suggested by Shawyer) and only focus on high power but dirty magnetrons, or precise but low power solid-state power amps.
-
Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0308060v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser
In 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Ah, klystrons… high power, narrow frequency and stable output, at once! My favorite ;)
I don't understand why nobody plans to try klystrons (as well as TWTAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling-wave_tube) suggested by Shawyer) and only focus on high power but dirty magnetrons, or precise but low power solid-state power amps.
There are designs for a 100kW klystron floating about. Think the general consensus it to get repeatability at lower power levels before the "sledge hammer" of 100kW is considered. But yes, a TWTA or Klystron is the best way to go IMHO once it all becomes an accepted technology.
IIRC, there was someone in Canada I think was working on a 100kW experiment. They haven't posted in some time. Hope there wasn't an accident. You think magnetrons are dangerous, step in front of an unshielded Klystron once and your building days are over.
-
There are designs for a 100kW klystron floating about. Think the general consensus it to get repeatability at lower power levels before the "sledge hammer" of 100kW is considered. But yes, a TWTA or Klystron is the best way to go IMHO once it all becomes an accepted technology.
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pLIjVlBwJ6SJdwA6zzShBiuQqy-8T2HYOCNFwcLj_i9_XgviuyZEXRIllYp-747ZXvmMk1P1j4t-z6ES77pOOhLChuk82mVvIVJiwnn73R6LypDYycDS89WGWnNoY1aCBHPiQXGqkEZgVDlCRElFMZS05mWaWXeXiveTWA1o4X5USLPnu7FtEaFjeU7FpbIn-VhnPAEOK6o_ZYZWkD3-j_K0W6y-Yzn3Ozfm53T1_dDPUmrLcf12DrO68--fJ09-htO5-BGyRbPCz2OprRfzMGtJ7sp8VzRZgjaNYhEp-wlOmmbs8CY8f8T5jdyF-lG1T14R8VQqrcxuDP72CVdnxLh7fM-Ea1M-27xUPAoF7cmij4eYwaZfpg6_Rc3-_eaI03AE7toN7rdqRJXCELfFysmvOLQtVs_yTvZt7oe2h-vVcyPyea3M7-YRdA3CIMaspKLHpE54XqltZ8xxRUxqRNTAS1SsLh2G6rZyWNnU2OT4pa8YYy4USWSoeh89ivzEFPcJPw6j2jI1GlvOyGW06gzmkXIfUOuRBu26-uyLFqiywHBii-tAojZ1zBiCip_a3zKFHZi2=w2404-h1326)
But definitely won't happen there with their current lack of funding.
IIRC, there was someone in Canada I think was working on a 100kW experiment. They haven't posted in some time. Hope there wasn't an accident. You think magnetrons are dangerous, step in front of an unshielded Klystron once and your building days are over.
Given the clues by Shawyer & TheTraveller about the repeatedly pulsed RF power with respect to the short "filling time" of the cavity and attempts to maintain uniform spherical wavefronts; the weird powerful transient "jerk" action investigated by SeeShells; and the various theories notably the one established by WarpTech, it appears someone should indeed experiment with clean pulsed high power, after the continuous blurry regime provided by CW magnetrons used up to now. But you're right it is dangerous. And characterization of the drive and spurious effects have to be completed first.
One should note however that a pulsed power source can reach a high peak power, but its average power could still be considerably lower.
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
Mr. Sulu, divert 10% of the impulse EmDrive maser power into the main FEL beam, and blow up that Borg cube now! ;D
-
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
Despite some optimistic projections, it appears, from the EW vac results, that the force generation scales linear with Power (as per Roger's theory) and not at Power^2 or Power^4 as QV theory or Mach Effect theory predicts.
Which means if we want large N/kWrf numbers, using Shawyer Effect thruster designs, the pathway is cryo frustums with Qu of 10^9 or larger.
If QV theory, Mach Effect theory or some other theory can show experimental force generation data > linear (Qu * Power) please bring to on and share the data.
BTW it is not possible to keep the Rf energy freq envelope from a magnetron, to be inside a cryo frustum's bandwidth, so there is no way magnetron's have any value other than in low force generation demonstrations with low Qu non cryo frustums.
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Might be simpler and easier to replicate what I did.
Basically the same thing but much more KISS.
I measured 8mN (0.8g) of force small to big on an electronic scale with a gravity stacked frustum excited in TE013 mode with 95Wrf forward.
No centre of CG shift nor Lorentz forces. Ok maybe a thermal chimney effect but with power on being like 5 - 10 sec, nothing gets warm.
Swap the stack arrangement and the force reverses direction in reference to gravity but maintains a small to big direction.
-
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
Despite some optimistic projections, it appears, from the EW vac results, that the force generation scales linear with Power (as per Roger's theory) and not at Power^2 or Power^4 as QV theory or Mach Effect theory predicts.
Which means if we want large N/kWrf numbers, using Shawyer Effect thruster designs, the pathway is cryo frustums with Qu of 10^9 or larger.
If QV theory, Mach Effect theory or some other theory can show experimental force generation data > linear (Qu * Power) please bring to on and share the data.
BTW it is not possible to keep the Rf energy freq envelope from a magnetron, to be inside a cryo frustum's bandwidth, so there is no way magnetron's have any value other than in low force generation demonstrations with low Qu non cryo frustums.
I wouldn't read too much into the NASA results. The design may be far from optimum. The true trends may be masked by other effects.
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Might be simpler and easier to replicate what I did.
Basically the same thing but much more KISS.
I measured 8mN (0.8g) of force small to big on an electronic scale with a gravity stacked frustum excited in TE013 mode with 95Wrf forward.
No centre of CG shift nor Lorentz forces. Ok maybe a thermal chimney effect but with power on being like 5 - 10 sec, nothing gets warm.
Swap the stack arrangement and the force reverses direction in reference to gravity but maintains a small to big direction.
Will your device fit in a bell jar? You really wouldn't need that good of a vacuum to limit any possible thermal effects due to air.
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
-
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
I'm using idealized geometry and an idealized dipole antenna so I suspect it would be very difficult to achieve this kind of field strength practically.
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
Monomorphic, what was the material definition for the frustum, PEC or Cu?
Try to run a single frequency sim at the same frequency as shown in the pic with a defined input power value instead of "No power scaling".
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
What was the material definition for the frustum, PEC or Cu?
Try to run a single frequency sim at the same frequency as shown in the pic with a defined input power value instead of "No power scaling"
What is then the resulting fieldstrength?
The question was:
"How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?"
Answer: It doesn't. It is related of (2 Qu Pwr Df) / c
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
What was the material definition for the frustum, PEC or Cu?
Try to run a single frequency sim at the same frequency as shown in the pic with a defined input power value instead of "No power scaling"
What is then the resulting fieldstrength?
The question was:
"How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?"
Answer: It doesn't. It is related of (2 Qu Pwr Df) / c
It doesn't? What is your definition of POWER of the EM-field in your equation? "magic happens inside" or something like P=U·I ? What is the result when U=0 (therefore E=0)?
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Might be simpler and easier to replicate what I did.
Basically the same thing but much more KISS.
I measured 8mN (0.8g) of force small to big on an electronic scale with a gravity stacked frustum excited in TE013 mode with 95Wrf forward.
No centre of CG shift nor Lorentz forces. Ok maybe a thermal chimney effect but with power on being like 5 - 10 sec, nothing gets warm.
Swap the stack arrangement and the force reverses direction in reference to gravity but maintains a small to big direction.
Unfortunately I can't afford an amp, I could definitely convert a microwave magnetron to coax...
But my objective is to sufficiently separate the power source from the test article. Sure I can quantify Lorentz forces and thermal expansion of a coax but even then there will be doubt. I honestly doubt that "nothing gets warm" in the first 5 to 10 seconds, 95 W flowing through a coax would definitely heat up above room temperature. Maybe you couldn't feel it through the jacket...
Did you publish a paper or something that details your experiment? I've seen a few pictures, sparse descriptions and cogent results here and there but perhaps I missed the document. Replication is pretty difficult without a formal paper...
If the scale is electronic, I would be concerned that leakage from high-power microwaves would throw off its readings.
As far as the digital scale is concerned, sufficient shielding is definitely necessary. Microwave leakage is going to be significant and far from ideal, but that's the price you pay for completely separating the power source.
-
As far as the digital scale is concerned, sufficient shielding is definitely necessary. Microwave leakage is going to be significant and far from ideal, but that's the price you pay for completely separating the power source.
Hang in there.
Working on a 10W Rf amp, TE012, 2.45Ghz design that will cost, for the components from EBay and your local Cu sheet supplier around $500.
2mN should do a good job on a 0.01g (100uN) scale. As for EMI suppression, how much do you actually think exits out of a 10K Qu cavity? Have you actually measured what exits from a cavity hit with a single freq of 100Wrf at a Qu of 8k? There was no noticeable effect on the scale. The 4 strain gauges use a differential input to the amp, which helps to eliminate external induction effects plus the 125mm diameter scale platform is ~1mm thick nickel / chrome coated copper.
Please work out the surface temp increase for 95Wrf for 5 sec with a radiative surface area of 0.265m^2 coated with a high emissivity stove black coating.
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa! :o
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown! :o
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
Since in a TE mode, the electric field E = -dA/dt, we can calculate the magnetic gauge potential as;
A = - E/2pi*f
This is the amount of "potential" Electromagnetic Momentum/Coulomb of charge.
Curl(A) = B
Div(A) = 0 but Div(A2) =/= 0, and this is where we can exploit it for thrust.
-
Div(A) = 0 but Div(A2) =/= 0, and this is where we can exploit it for thrust.
Thrust (small to big) is the difference in the Radiation Pressure as per Force = (2 Qu Pwr Df) / c. Force direction depends on the setup and can be either be a static Thrust force being big to small or a accelerative dynamic Reaction force being big to small.
Would enjoy reviewing any EmDrive experimental data that suggests this equation is not correct.
-
Div(A) = 0 but Div(A2) =/= 0, and this is where we can exploit it for thrust.
Thrust (small to big) is the difference in the Radiation Pressure as per Force = (2 Qu Pwr Df) / c. Force direction depends on the setup and can be either be a static Thrust force being big to small or a accelerative dynamic Reaction force being big to small.
Would enjoy reviewing any EmDrive experimental data that suggests this equation is not correct.
"That" equation is fine. It's the DF that's BS.
-
As far as the digital scale is concerned, sufficient shielding is definitely necessary. Microwave leakage is going to be significant and far from ideal, but that's the price you pay for completely separating the power source.
Hang in there.
Working on a 10W Rf amp, TE012, 2.45Ghz design that will cost, for the components from EBay and your local Cu sheet supplier around $500.
2mN should do a good job on a 0.01g (100uN) scale. As for EMI suppression, how much do you actually think exits out of a 10K Qu cavity? Have you actually measured what exits from a cavity hit with a single freq of 100Wrf at a Qu of 8k? There was no noticeable effect on the scale. The 4 strain gauges use a differential input to the amp, which helps to eliminate external induction effects plus the 125mm diameter scale platform is ~1mm thick nickel / chrome coated copper.
Please work out the surface temp increase for 95Wrf for 5 sec with a radiative surface area of 0.265m^2 coated with a high emissivity stove black coating.
Sorry I think there were some misunderstandings:
I was replying to Donosauro who mentioned that my proposed horn experiment would interfere with a digital scale because there would be significant leakage due to the horn antenna power transfer.
Also I said that your coax could've heated up, perhaps it thermally expanded causing a slight moment and pushing down on the scale. Quick coax loss calculator says only a watt max wouldv'e been dissipated, so probably unlikely... But I really have no idea because I don't know the majority of the details about your experiment. Again if you had some sort of report with pictures, collected analyses, schematics etc that would help...
I think the low power tests have been done and done well. I think its time to revisit the sledgehammer approach. Anyone have an extra klystron laying around? ::)
-
Also I said that your coax could've heated up, perhaps it thermally expanded causing a slight moment and pushing down on the scale. Quick coax loss calculator says only a watt max wouldv'e been dissipated, so probably unlikely... But I really have no idea because I don't know the majority of the details about your experiment. Again if you had some sort of report with pictures, collected analyses, schematics etc that would help...
The Rf amp connector was aligned horizontally with the frustum connector plus the ~2kg frustum and the EMI shield were gravity stacked on the scale. Weight loss / gain followed frustum reversal.
So how will this arrangement, with 5 sec of Rf energy applied to the frustum, generate a 0.8g or 8mN weight increase or decrease, depending on frustum vertical orientation on the scale when the Rf connectors were horizontally aligned?
I have no photos as an incident occurred shortly later and it resulted in the Rf amp no longer working.
Should shortly reverse that situation.
Do have a picture of the 3kg x 0.01g scale.
The Rf amp was returned to the manuf for repair and the frustum was sent to my frustum fabricators to have flanges fitted to both end of the frustum and machined to be highly parallel and at right angles to the frustum axis.
I have due in mid Dec:
2 x 100W Rf amps.
2 x 250W Rf amps.
2 x spherical end plate Al frustums with multilayer very high Qu coating.
2 x flat end plate plate Cu frustums.
1 x rebuilt Cu original frustum.
Let the fun begin.
-
Hi All
For one thing, there are some good EM-Drive concepts appearing regularly on this thread, but the thread gets long and things tend to quickly go out of view. If somebody knows of a practicable solution to archive the salient points as they get developed, I think that would do a great service to many.
For myself, I'd like to point out some ideas that appeared here recently and that (to me at least) were showing great promise, and that might be considered for future interest. Also there are some ideas from an engineering standpoint on which might advance the state of the art and on which I'd like to see the opinions of our resident experts.
One thing is sure. We don't yet have a theory that is credible beyond reasonable doubt. Ans so long as it stays that way and as we don't have provable predictive power from a theoretical standpoint, engineering has to lead the way for a while. At least as long as the effect is not either demonstrated to a very high level of assurance or disproven to that same level. With better empirical data it should be easier to attract more serious attention from a wider range of scientists and that's what this topic has been in great need of, almost forever.
A way to go there is to increase the efficiency of the test devices. We don't yet know how, but there are many clues, and I think that now is a good time to collect them from the various places and sum them up, and to try to integrate various points that have so far been considered separately.
- There is the cavity loading and the field strength resulting from RF Power and Q.
- There are geometric cavity properties that lead to specific field properties like a high variation of the resulting guide wavelength and of the energy density along the longitudinal axis. According to experiments, both seem to be needed in order to obtain a good effect.
- There is the RF source frequency and phase stability issue.
- There are effects of the cavity and antenna geometry on the mode selectivity of the system.
Particularly the last 2 effects have been a challenge where different people tried different approaches, and yet better ones seem to be needed. Eagleworks has done everyone a really great service with their frequency-locked driver design where the PLL was directly being locked to the cavity resonance via a sense antenna, yet they had difficulties to excite specific modes, and in the end they had to settle for a possibly non-optimal mode choice. Given one particular weak point of their particular driver design (according to the leaked paper), I'm not too surprised that the difficulties had arisen, even though the design is excellent in other qualities. On the other hand, others seem to have made better choices considering geometry and antenna placement that might have benefited from EW's driver design approach if such drivers were more easily obtainable.
Therefore, I'd like to bring these points together and offer the people here some thoughts to consider.
Rather than writing a very long post all in one piece, I'd prefer to end the philosophical part here, and continue with the technical details in the next post...
-
I made the tapered prism with the small end equal to WR340 (86.4 by 43.2 mm) waveguide internal dimensions and big end equal to a WG6 (165 by 83 mm) and height ~213 mm for 2.45 GHz TE013.
Put a WR340 in the end and started playing with the aperture... looks like its somewhere in between green and blue on the smith chart. Slightly shifted down from 2.45 but a little less height would bring it back.
-
... Now to the technical, hopefully more interesting part!
Eagleworks has made a risky, but from my point of view, good, decision, to use a PLL-based driver and to reference the PLL directly from the cavity resonator by a sense antenna. Active frequency control has been proposed by many others here, but directly referencing the cavity resonance itself is, from what I've seen, a new approach. They don't make fuss about it, and in fact, it's only noticeable if you look at the block schematic of their driver more closely.
There is one thing that they really "nailed" with that design however: it's that the driver is self-locking to the cavity resonance and the resonance is basically self-tracking in real time to a very high precision. I'm not aware of anyone here attaining comparably stable locking by other means.
There is also one major and one minor disadvantage: Their system is free-running (major) and it provides no phase tracking (minor).
The major problem is that it will always automatically lock to the strongest mode in the vicinity of the initial "seed" (see paper for details on "seed") frequency. It's a basic, unavoidable modus operandi for their system. Given the way it is made, it cannot act otherwise. It's like a "greedy" optimization algorithm that will always continue searching along an upwards slope until it finds a local maximum (mode with highest field strength). If a stronger (e.g. TM) mode is nearby, the system can't stay stable driving a weaker (e.g. TE) mode, it will always self-lock to the strongest local maximum (mode). That's why, when they said that they "had difficulties" exciting a particular weak more, this would be perfectly understandable - their drive system is self-optimizing in real time along a rising gradient towards the strongest local mode and it has no way to turn this "feature" off. Basically they made a very efficiently self-locking driver and once that worked, in some respects they've fallen prey to that driver's good automatic optimization abilities.
The minor problem (rather unrelated) is that they implement a manual phase setting that is preset in advance and does not get the benefit of automatic tracking in real time. But this should be less difficult to fix (see below).
Some people here will probably make the point "So don't make the driver so autonomous!", but I'd rather for now explore the idea, how such an "autonomous" driver might be put to a better use - and I think there are ways for doing that.
IMO, the key to this is a cavity and antenna design that is strongly mode-selective. That is, rather than forcing a driver to excite a weak mode that is difficult to lock into, better make a resonant system that has a mode selectivity sufficient that the desired mode is indeed the strongest mode - then the "greedy" self-locking PLL driver will find it by necessity rather than by luck.
We've now had many cavity designs of "classical" shapes - cones with end plates. They all have strong "nearby" undesired modes in the vicinity of the ones that would be preferred. But there are other, more advanced possibilities, for example the parabolic, di-parabolic and hemispherical ones mentioned by Todd and Shell on page 129 (ff) of this thread, one example re-attached below for reference. I think that advanced resonator geometries should be worth consideration as they might provide a high mode selectivity among other things. Plus they may also provide high field strengths and some may be amenable to a high quality prototype production on a CNC lathe. I think that advanced resonator geometries should be in our future rather than in our past.
Also, there have only been single antenna systems used so far. Phased arrays can provide an orders of magnitude higher directivitiy than any single small antenna, and inside a closed resonator the antenna directivity will practically translate to a mode selectivity. By driving a resonator with a phased antenna array, it should be possible to greatly enhance the mode selectivity of the whole antenna-resonator system. Basically up to the point where the resonator accepts but a single mode, uniquely chosen by the geometry of the phased array. This should also be one of the things for future consideration.
And finally to that pesky minor problem of the missing phase control. As long as the frequency is self-locking, the phase angle can be adjusted rather slowly, the control loop does not need to have microsecond reaction times. It may be perfectly fine to measure the forward and the reflected power and slowly adjust the carrier phase to find the best match by an optimum operating point tracking algorithm. Since it does not need high speeds, a microcontroller could do that.
In fact, The Traveller (IIRC) has proposed to control the drive frequency to minimize the reflected power based on the reflected power meter readings. That's certainly a good idea, but it has its difficulties because it only controls frequency, not phase, and the frequency stepping must be very "delicate", especially for narrowband High-Q resonators, plus the control loop can be no faster than the reflected power meter.
However if the frequency is taken care of by a fast real-time PLL like in Eagleworks's design, the phase angle becomes a quantity like the power factor in mains electricity networks. It would be easier to control at modest speed and The Traveller's reflected power minimization strategy could just as well be applied to phase control instead of frequency. Eagleworks adjusted their phase manually and they reported seeing a "Phase Q", that they could maximize by tuning. That's a good start, but it does not track dynamic changes, and this tracking could be added by a relatively modest control loop running at manageable speeds.
As a summary, I'd like to include a proposed block schematic of a modified driver. It's strongly based on the Eagleworks design, but includes the phase control as detailed above (needs a continuous 360 degree phase modulator) and a little reminder that multi-antenna phased array drive might also be an idea to be considered instead of (or in addition to) an advanced geometry resonator to improve selectivity...
Obviously the entire thing with all bells and whistles would be spendy, particularly for a homemade build, but there are also some institutional EM-drive builders reading here, and who knows, someone may be interested at least in some parts and aspects as a way to improve his existing design. Plus, I think that it was time to sum these things up that individually affect the critical EM-Drive operating parameters, and mention them together in one place for easier reference.
Particularly regarding proposed superconducting resonators, where loading times are long, so must also be the phase coherence of the driver. Otherwise the RF source will start "unloading" the cavity as the phase angle drifts, before it even got fully loaded. To that end, one should consider both fast real-time frequency tracking and stable precise phase tracking in order to maintain a stable resonant field inside.
Regards
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
If the scale is electronic, I would be concerned that leakage from high-power microwaves would throw off its readings.
This is a possibility of reading corruption with a strain gauge load cell scale. And, it is almost a certainty when using a force restoration transducer scale. Some of the pictures of of EM Drives directly on scales look like they are Sartorius or Mettler scales which generally are the force restoration types. If so then the results are already suspect.
-
... Now to the technical, hopefully more interesting part!
EW established exactly what I recommended, what, almost 2 years ago, a phase locked loop. Look back many threads. You must tune the source to the fabricated cavity. What they missed is that no one knows whether these things actually provide any thrust whatsoever, so microwave tuning is somewhat pointless.
Again, what we really need to see is a force locked looped. The signal source should be frequency and phase locked, and tracking, the maximum detected thrust.
-
... Now to the technical, hopefully more interesting part!
EW established exactly what I recommended, what, almost 2 years ago, a phase locked loop. Look back many threads. You must tune the source to the fabricated cavity. What they missed is that no one knows whether these things actually provide any thrust whatsoever, so microwave tuning is somewhat pointless.
Again, what we really need to see is a force locked looped. The signal source should be frequency and phase locked, and tracking, the maximum detected thrust.
Watch Zellerium, a very bright person who has yet to be obstructed by the conceit that effects those of us who have attained age.
The universe belongs to the young.
-
The following is not my idea but I feel it interesting enough to repost here so RF specialists can give some clues. This is already used to check multi-cavity klystrons for resonance. Maybe it could also increase efficiency and thrust for a superconducting EmDrive.
White noise wideband injection
In case of superconducting YBCO cavities, the input power can be small (milliwatts) in order not to reach breakdown voltages due to high Q. Then what about white noise wideband injection? When white noise is fed into a cavity with a Q of 108, assuming 10 mW per mode in the frustum, for 100% conversion one would theoretically reach a power of 1 megawatt.
High efficiency multimode operation
Assuming 10 useful modes over a wideband of 700 MHz, one could try to fill each mode slot with 100 mW white noise in 10 kHz slots, each meaning a total of 1W from an overall noise envelope of kilowatts.
The unused white noise would be rejected automatically from the frustum to a high power load at the circulator, or used in other slightly detuned frustums, adding to the available thrust.
I do not know how many frustums one could feed with that reflected white noise, but assuming an array of 10 frustums would amount to a total of 100 modes, each adding to the total thrust. There wouldn't be any overheating in each frustum since unused noise is reflected out. Sure that would only work IF it works for superconducting cavities.
No need for lots of PLL oscillators. The existing resonant modes should get filled with broadband noise. It's like an electronic version of a multichannel Helmholtz oscillator. Or a pipe organ where all the pipes start vibrating at the same time. Yet the narrow band-pass filter will convert white noise into sine waves. They are low Q devices. But if the cavity Q gets to 108 things could go interesting. One would need an S-band noise source followed by S-band wideband amplifiers and wideband 700 MHz band-pass filter followed by high power wideband amplifier, to get some 700 watts white noise in order to finally input 10 mW of noise in each resonant mode. If it works it would be a simple solution equipment wise, but open to really multichannel operation.
One last remark for space applications: Let's say we have many frustums consuming 1W each, and so easily passively cooled by radiating into cold space. The remaining unused waste white noise could be got rid of by radiating via waveguide horn antennas into space.
I know SeeShells tried multimodes with simulations and maybe with her frustums by accident, and she thinks this does not add thrust, because under broadband injection different frequencies are accepted or not by the cavity and the phasing of those signals either add or subtract (in phase or out or phase) so finally one particular mode is excited and the others cancel out. Maybe this would require several different antennas.
-
Would seem Roger and Gilo have been busy on a new EmDrive patent application. Please note that both Roger and Gilo are the inventors:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035187289/PAMPH/WO2016162676.pdf
Plus more technical details than before.
It is going to be very interesting to see what Gilo Industries releases as their 1st EmDrive product.
-
Would seem Roger and Gilo have been busy on a new EmDrive patent application. Please note that both Roger and Gilo are the inventors:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035187289/PAMPH/WO2016162676.pdf
Plus more technical details than before.
It is going to be very interesting to see what Gilo Industries releases as their 1st EmDrive product.
Worth noting it is the first EmDrive international patent application.
Gilo Cardozo shares the invention with Roger Shawyer. The applicant is still SPR Ltd. and not their new joint-venture Universal Propulsion Ltd. though.
-
Would seem Roger and Gilo have been busy on a new EmDrive patent application. Please note that both Roger and Gilo are the inventors:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035187289/PAMPH/WO2016162676.pdf
Plus more technical details than before.
It is going to be very interesting to see what Gilo Industries releases as their 1st EmDrive product.
Worth noting it is the first EmDrive international patent application.
Gilo Cardozo shares the invention with Roger Shawyer. The applicant is still SPR Ltd. and not their new joint-venture Universal Propulsion Ltd. though.
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
BTW the performance data data in the application seems to be for the 2009 non cryo Flight Thruster as it is rated at 326mN/kWrf and that data looks to match the attached Flight Thruster data.
-
Also I said that your coax could've heated up, perhaps it thermally expanded causing a slight moment and pushing down on the scale. Quick coax loss calculator says only a watt max wouldv'e been dissipated, so probably unlikely... But I really have no idea because I don't know the majority of the details about your experiment. Again if you had some sort of report with pictures, collected analyses, schematics etc that would help...
The Rf amp connector was aligned horizontally with the frustum connector plus the ~2kg frustum and the EMI shield were gravity stacked on the scale. Weight loss / gain followed frustum reversal.
So how will this arrangement, with 5 sec of Rf energy applied to the frustum, generate a 0.8g or 8mN weight increase or decrease, depending on frustum vertical orientation on the scale when the Rf connectors were horizontally aligned?
I have no photos as an incident occurred shortly later and it resulted in the Rf amp no longer working.
Should shortly reverse that situation.
Do have a picture of the 3kg x 0.01g scale.
The Rf amp was returned to the manuf for repair and the frustum was sent to my frustum fabricators to have flanges fitted to both end of the frustum and machined to be highly parallel and at right angles to the frustum axis.
I have due in mid Dec:
2 x 100W Rf amps.
2 x 250W Rf amps.
2 x spherical end plate Al frustums with multilayer very high Qu coating.
2 x flat end plate plate Cu frustums.
1 x rebuilt Cu original frustum.
Let the fun begin.
good luck, but im not convinced that a kitchen scale is a good way to measure thrust. But there is a other way to do that, not with a scale, but with sound. You could attach a piezo sensor on the end of the frustrum and "listen" to the thrust in stead of glaring to numbers. (just be sure that the frustrum "rest"on the element..
-
BTW the performance data data in the application seems to be for the 2009 non cryo Flight Thruster as it is rated at 326mN/kWrf and that data looks to match the attached Flight Thruster data.
Yes, it seems so.
Also, the two helical antennas in this patent show how to track and correct phase distortion (an issue raised by xyzzy in his last message (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610141#msg1610141)): the main central helical antenna produces an input circularly polarised waveform, which is reflected by the major end plate. The reflected wave, of opposite polarisation, is detected by the second smaller counter-helical detector antenna. Any phase difference between the input and the reflected waves can be measured and the phase corrected for the next input waveform. This kind of PLL corrects Doppler shifts resulting of the acceleration of the cavity.
The EM frequency and phase tuning is also assisted by a physical tuning of the cavity thanks to piezoelectric actuators connected to the sliding minor end reflector, that modulate the axial length of the cavity to further compensate for the dynamic Doppler shift.
This new patent provides the dimensions for an exemplary design:
• Major flat end diameter: 145 mm
• Minor shaped end diameter: 97 mm
• Axial length between ends: ~67 mm
• Dimensions to shape the minor end reflector accordingly: see table and figures attached.
Someone should try those dimensions in FEKO to check what are the suitable mode & frequency.
-
FC,
Would expect those dimensions plus the small end cap dimension data to enable FEKO or other resonant cavity simulator to model the mode shape.
Clearly Giles, aka Gilo Cardozo has stamped his presence all over the Universal Propulsion JV and now the International patent application.
Roger did say there was to be a 2017 demo of a EmDrive wingless and propless drone. Maybe it straps to Gilo with a harness and allows him to fly around as he desires.
Seems Gilo likes to fly to friends and dinner parties, James Bond style:
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/personal-flying-machine-58928
Interesting times ahead.
-
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
As I pointed out (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610242#msg1610242), neither Gilo Industries Group (or any of its subsidiaries) nor Universal Propulsion Ltd. (JV between SPR Ltd. & Gilo Industries) are involved in the new patent. The inventors are indeed listed as being Roger Shawyer and Gilo Cardozo (50/50) but the applicant (which becomes the assignee once the patent is granted) is only Shawyer's company Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd.
As explained here (http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/patents/11623111.html):
• Inventorship is who conceived of the invention. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention.
• The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
So it seems Shawyer has still more rights over Cardozo on this patent application, if ever granted.
-
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
As I pointed out, neither Gilo Industries Group (or any of its subsidiaries) nor Universal Propulsion Ltd. (JV between SPR Ltd. & Gilo Industries) are involved in the new patent. The inventors are indeed listed as being Roger Shawyer and Gilo Cardozo (50/50) but the applicant (which becomes the assignee once the patent is granted) of the patent is only Shawyer's company Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd.
As explained here (http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/patents/11623111.html):
• Inventorship is who conceived of the invention. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention.
• The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
So it seems Shawyer has still more rights over Cardozo on this patent application, if ever granted.
There is a earlier UK patent application that did not mention Gilo.
GB1505870.4:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035220456/PDOC/WO2016162676.pdf
My point was Gilo has increased his leverage as I assume he pumps money into supporting EmDrive research and production. I would also speculate it is Gilo that is, in one way or the other, paying the cost of the International application.
-
....
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
..
...
Mmmm, that's not a bad idea at all. By using several orientations of the horns (horizontal, vertical) it should be possible to find out whether they exert forces on each other. And when applying from above and having shielding around the frustum + scale, it should be possible to attenuate the stray fields enough so it will not influence the scale.
I'll keep this in mind for future experiments (my Mettler scale has 1 mg res and 1200 g capacity).
Peter
-
This new patent provides the dimensions for an exemplary design:
• Major flat end diameter: 145 mm
• Minor shaped end diameter: 97 mm
• Axial length between ends: ~67 mm
• Dimensions to shape the minor end reflector accordingly: see table and figures attached.
Someone should try those dimensions in FEKO to check what are the suitable mode & frequency.
I'm not sure what this chart means by R3 (error) and Correction columns. Anyone?
-
Yesterday SPR filed their accounts for the year ending 31-Mar-2016. The total exemption small company accounts show only a skeletal balance sheet, with no P&L statement. Items of note are:
1) The P&L account in shareholders funds increased by £27,333, consistent with a profit of that amount, and down from £51,513 last year. The lack of a P&L statement means that revenue could be higher than this, for example if he had chosen to pay himself a substantial salary. Other shareholders with loans outstanding might not consider that very ethical of the controlling shareholder. Any salary of Shawyer's is likely to be modest.
2) Related Party disclosures show that Shawyer received £5,000 contributing to reduction in provisions and £20,000 last year. In both cases this was 43.93% of the reduction in provisions, which are indefinite-term interest free shareholder loans. It is a reasonable guess that Shawyer is owed 43.93% of the £182,848 outstanding debt of SPR, and the debt is being paid down pro-rata.
3) Current Liabilities are essentially nil. Either the balance sheet has been 'dressed' to avoid disclosure, or there is no current business activity. Either is quite possible.
4) Last year, the year-end cash balance was circa £11,646 and a very similar sum was returned to shareholders as loan repayments in the next year. This year there is a cash balance of £26,688 which one could speculate is earmarked for the same purpose.
The only firm conclusion is that SPR continues to have some income, which it does not disclose.
-
Dear All,
Last posts I discussed a refined take on what has aptly been termed the “sledgehammer approach”. I outlined using high intensity pulsed lasers to achieve higher E field densities, and how this potentially directly relates to local negative energy densities in the QV. I cannot prove it empirically due to lack of resources but I have a strong suspicion that the resonant frustum, among other effects, produces a spacetime distortion with a mass/energy gradient in the longitudinal axis. The related mechanisms are outlined in these papers. http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.5682
I have refined and revised my design suggestion regarding a metallic photon ‘lattice’ with feedback loop. I have dropped the idea of using entangled photons due to the practical impossibility of sufficiently regulating internal temperature.
Design idea(s):
1) Thin resonating cones (hollow needles) – Single high power solitonized pulse laser split at the top of the device aimed towards each of the needles via diffractive/beam splitting material or antennas. Top of the device has a tapered conical chamber shape where noise can accumulate and dissipate. Each thin cone resonates and has own propulsive effect. Net propulsion is Cones*laser input assuming relatively equal power distribution but slower loading. Concerns: resonance in open cone is impossible, how to implement one way mirrors on the tops of the cones?
Key point here is that E field density is several orders of magnitude higher than with magnetron designs. If linear scaling applies to thrust as experimentally suggested by Eagleworks then we have some serious potential thrusts.
2) Carbon nanotube lattice – Carbon nanotubes are absolutely fantastic tunable complex mini frustums. Q is low but imagine many tens of thousands being excited by a high intensity emitter. Regarding structure I suggest two options: many straight tubes. Second is honeycomb with multiple clusters stacked in multiple layers. Each layer will catch a certain % of total radiation from the emitter with sum adjustable by shifting layer position. Added bonus with honeycomb design is improved modularity, cooling and repairs to damaged or inefficient layers. Required reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.07352
Key point is the economy of scale which comes from many thousands of frustums. Additionally, carbon nanotubes can be tuned to facilitate phase lock and they can accept much smaller wavelengths. Areas to explore are nanotube architecture such as conical nanotubes (currently confined to um scale http://pyramid.spd.louisville.edu/~eri/papers_pres/Sunkara_Small_Materials_2008.pdf) and connected/feedback loops within nanotube mesh.
EDIT: I forgot to clarify, honeycomb design would apply on both macro and micro levels. Imagine on the macro level something analogous to racks in a grill.
I am currently investigating the implications of this paper on EM absorption. It, and much other literature, posits that carbon nanotubes dissipate EM energy via vibration, in fact it is an established use. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/17295/InTech-High_frequency_properties_of_carbon_nanotubes_and_their_electromagnetic_wave_absorption_properties.pdf
However, I am optimistic as http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/17303.pdf clearly demonstrates on pp 475-476 that wavelength decreases along the tube creating quasimomentum in the microfrustum(!!!), sounds familiar doesn't it? If sufficiently cooled (to prevent kinetic energy loss) there is clear theoretical support for this concept working in a similar way to existing designs.
Another related paper for the interested: http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier94/25.09062001.pdf
Final edit: The more I look into carbon nanotube properties the more alluring the idea seems. Would be interesting if somebody creates a honeycomb-like mesh of interconnected tubes (similar to graphene but perfectly aligned). Quite honestly, the potential interactions between high energy lasers and carbon-surface plasmonics in the context of such a design is beyond my current understanding and even my imagination. http://www.ece.rice.edu/ece/xugroup/Papers/Excitation%20of%20Plasmonic%20Waves%20in%20Graphene%20by%20Guided-Mode%20Resonances.pdf
All this being said, we are still at a frontier in terms of maximizing intra-cavity power, as 5.6kW is the last empirical limit I could find before severe kinetic degradation of the walls occur. Potential solutions include the layered graphene pseudo-tubes I mentioned, cooling techniques, and taking advantage of the sheer number of microfrustums. Here's a 2007 paper dealing with mode-locked high energy pulse lasers in carbon nanotubes and the practical limitations. http://www.photon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~maruyama/papers/07/SongAPL.pdf
Best Regards,
LA
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far as forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far a forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts.
The patent quotes this series of 2009 Flight Thruster data as attached. It is not cryo data but it does show force scales with power which is really Q * power. Read any accelerator reference and you quickly learn the stored energy is based on Q * Power.
I can add that building a room temp Cu Qu 50K thruster is not that difficult but as the Q climbs, the need for very accurate build dimensional accuracy increases as very high Q cavities need to be able to generate very low phase distortion travelling wave fronts or it all stops.
As I see it the Force does scale with Q but building high Q cavities is not simple, easy or low cost. The patent is very clever as it addresses a lot of the build issues and to me reflects a lot of man hours of engineering development into ways and solution to make KISS EmDrives.
When I 1st saw the frustum design, I immediately though, Roger you are a very clever boy.
Should add that assuming the Force curves are correct and the cavity has a 5x Tc fill and discharge time of 2 sec, or 1 sec charge time or 0.2 sec 1 Tc time, you can cale the Q that was needed to cause such lengthly fill and discharge times.
Tc = Qu / (2 Pi Freq) so Qu = Tc 2 Pi Freq, which suggests the cavity Q was around 3x10^9 which seems fairly conservation as high performance accelerator cavities are around 5x10^11.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far a forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts.
The patent quotes this series of 2009 Flight Thruster data as attached. It is not cryo data but it does show force scales with power which is really Q * power. Read any accelerator reference and you quickly learn the stored energy is based on Q * Power.
I can add that building a room temp Cu Qu 50K thruster is not that difficult but as the Q climbs, the need for very accurate build dimensional accuracy increases as very high Q cavities need to be able to generate very low phase distortion travelling wave fronts or it all stops.
As I see it the Force does scale with Q but building high Q cavities is not simple, easy or low cost. The patent is very clever as it addresses a lot of the build issues and to me reflects a lot of man hours of engineering development into ways and solution to make KISS EmDrives.
When I 1st saw the frustum design, I immediately though, Roger you are a very clever boy.
Should add that assuming the Force curves are correct and the cavity has a 5x Tc fill and discharge time of 2 sec, or 1 sec charge time or 0.2 sec 1 Tc time, you can cale the Q that was needed to cause such lengthly fill and discharge times.
Tc = Qu / (2 Pi Freq) so Qu = Tc 2 Pi Freq, which suggests the cavity Q was around 3x10^9 which seems fairly conservation as high performance accelerator cavities are around 5x10^11.
In concept, Photonic laser thrusters have a gain medium that stabilizes the resonance so completely one can move one of the mirrors with ones hand and not stop resonance between the mirrors. That's been proven in the lab for photon recycling experiments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
I can't help but ask is there an equivalent concept one could use in the cavity to make the resonance and thus the Q extremely stable?
-
Thanks to Dave / RfMwGuy on Twitter, the EW in vac paper is officially released:
http://arc.aiaa.org/action/showMultipleAbstracts?doi=10.2514%2F1.B36120&href=%2Ftoc%2Fjpp%2F0%2F0&title=Journal+of+Propulsion+and+Power+%280%29
also attached.
Despite the Ew Cu frustum being copied from Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive, nowhere in the paper is Roger, SPR, EmDrive no any of his papers referenced.
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
Yes, we've used similar in plasma systems here...... you can use rim clamps and wind solder on the surfaces for an electrical seal.
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I don't know Todd, at $38.64 a pop it might break the bank ;) Might get a better deal on Black Friday where you can buy several; say 6 so you can mount on X, Y and Z axis simultaneously for vector control. Mars awaits.
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
Yes, we've used similar in plasma systems here...... you can use rim clamps and wind solder on the surfaces for an electrical seal.
Nahhh, is stainless steel. No good.
I have let the cylindrical cavity (diam. 180 mm) of the attached picture 3D-printed for less than $1000.
-
https://youtu.be/ynRVnIh6wq4
Erik Verlinde explains his new view of gravity
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
Yes, we've used similar in plasma systems here...... you can use rim clamps and wind solder on the surfaces for an electrical seal.
Nahhh, is stainless steel. No good.
I have let the cylindrical cavity (diam. 180 mm) of the attached picture 3D-printed for less than $1000.
3D-printed in copper? Is the photo your actual cavity?
I want a large gradient in the losses, but I would use a copper base plate.
I think SS can be copper or silver plated without too much difficulty though.
-
Design idea(s):
2) Carbon nanotube lattice – Carbon nanotubes are absolutely fantastic tunable complex mini frustums. Q is low but imagine many tens of thousands being excited by a high intensity emitter. Regarding structure I suggest two options: many straight tubes. Second is honeycomb with multiple clusters stacked in multiple layers. Each layer will catch a certain % of total radiation from the emitter with sum adjustable by shifting layer position. Added bonus with honeycomb design is improved modularity, cooling and repairs to damaged or inefficient layers. Required reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.07352
Key point is the economy of scale which comes from many thousands of frustums. Additionally, carbon nanotubes can be tuned to facilitate phase lock and they can accept much smaller wavelengths. Areas to explore are nanotube architecture such as conical nanotubes (currently confined to um scale http://pyramid.spd.louisville.edu/~eri/papers_pres/Sunkara_Small_Materials_2008.pdf) and connected/feedback loops within nanotube mesh.
EDIT: I forgot to clarify, honeycomb design would apply on both macro and micro levels. Imagine on the macro level something analogous to racks in a grill.
I am currently investigating the implications of this paper on EM absorption. It, and much other literature, posits that carbon nanotubes dissipate EM energy via vibration, in fact it is an established use. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/17295/InTech-High_frequency_properties_of_carbon_nanotubes_and_their_electromagnetic_wave_absorption_properties.pdf
However, I am optimistic as http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/17303.pdf clearly demonstrates on pp 475-476 that wavelength decreases along the tube creating quasimomentum in the microfrustum(!!!), sounds familiar doesn't it? If sufficiently cooled (to prevent kinetic energy loss) there is clear theoretical support for this concept working in a similar way to existing designs.
Another related paper for the interested: http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier94/25.09062001.pdf
Final edit: The more I look into carbon nanotube properties the more alluring the idea seems. Would be interesting if somebody creates a honeycomb-like mesh of interconnected tubes (similar to graphene but perfectly aligned). Quite honestly, the potential interactions between high energy lasers and carbon-surface plasmonics in the context of such a design is beyond my current understanding and even my imagination. http://www.ece.rice.edu/ece/xugroup/Papers/Excitation%20of%20Plasmonic%20Waves%20in%20Graphene%20by%20Guided-Mode%20Resonances.pdf
All this being said, we are still at a frontier in terms of maximizing intra-cavity power, as 5.6kW is the last empirical limit I could find before severe kinetic degradation of the walls occur. Potential solutions include the layered graphene pseudo-tubes I mentioned, cooling techniques, and taking advantage of the sheer number of microfrustums. Here's a 2007 paper dealing with mode-locked high energy pulse lasers in carbon nanotubes and the practical limitations. http://www.photon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~maruyama/papers/07/SongAPL.pdf
I have included a rough engineering graphical sketch and information sheet which summarizes and explains my Honeycomb CNT Mesh Rack (HCMR) frustum. It contains relevant theoretical and engineering suggestions. I have not yet heard of an EMdrive experiment using a layered or a HCMR style frustum, nor one using high power pulsed lasers.
Contents:
1. Sketch of device cross-section
2. HCMR internal structure and related physical effects
3. Potential HCMR Macrostructures
4. Notes and commentary
P.S. Interesting to see is how negative energy density field would propagate in the face of so much noise, would it follow these related equations? More fundamentally, would the field even be possible to maintain? http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/PropSq.pdf
-
Dr. Rodal, re your question about Cannae drive....I have the specs. for the first designed they submitted for their station keeping/thrusting design from 2007...specs: .9375 meter diameter, resonating at 160 MHz, with hoop antenna measuring 12 cm diameter. See attached. I've been hoping that someone might have the ability and time to perform a sim and post it here at NSF for all members. I have the specs. for other iterations (of their designs), and still am hoping to have one sim per each also for display here at NFS for all members. FL
-
Nahhh, is stainless steel. No good.
I have let the cylindrical cavity (diam. 180 mm) of the attached picture 3D-printed for less than $1000.
3D-printed in copper? Is the photo your actual cavity?
I was only kidding. It is (going to be) an actual cavity of mine, but they are two copper bowls. Cost less than $100 together. They are nicely polished inside. The walls are a bit thin, though (0.6 mm).
Peter
-
If the force detected in a given cavity = 1 milliNewton at 100 Watts power with a Q of 25,000, what is the force detected in the same given cavity 100 Watts with a Q of 250,000?
Any ideas folks?
An outlay of more money for a Niobium RC requires a projected/predicted "decent" amount of force increase. Any idea folks?
-
If the force detected in a given cavity = 1 milliNewton at 100 Watts power with a Q of 25,000, what is the force detected in the same given cavity 100 Watts with a Q of 250,000?
Any ideas folks?
An outlay of more money for a Niobium RC requires a projected/predicted "decent" amount of force increase. Any idea folks?
It would be a factor of 10 higher. So if it were 1 mN at 25,000 it will be 10mN at 250,000. It is linear with Q at these small thrust levels.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
The acceleration will be in the opposite direction of thrust, thus demonstrating that EmDrive also complies with Newton's third law of motion...
Actually, since thrust has been defined as the net force applied to the walls of the cavity by the EM radiation, this does not comply with Newton's third law of motion.
... and thus with conservation of momentum
This is an incorrect logical leap even if the first statement was true. To illustrate with a basic example (related to why he is wrong to make this leap):
A- Take 2 objects and rest
B- Wave a magic wand and cause one of them to gain a huge momentum from nowhere (breaking conservation of momentum)
C- let the moving object collide with the stationary object, and come to a stop, while the stationary object then continues on.
It does not matter that step C conserves conservation of energy and momentum, the total process breaks it due to step B.
-
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
If it is spontaneous ... it is an entropic event .( Isn't "force" a pre GR concept?) The fallen object now sitting on the ground has achieved a lower level in its pursuit of ever slower time. Next, it could fall into a well... later, with Earth, into a black hole... Gravity is an entropic well.
In common language I would say that things tend to exist more where the rate of time is slower.
If we take the rate of time as "per second" or 1/T, a slower time rate means a larger denominator T and, consequently, a larger corresponding "space" in order to keep C constant. In other words, the object falls into larger space which is what entropy is all about.
To continue ..
Entropy is a spontaneous process. To reverse entropy, it takes energy, like in a refrigerator. Energy is used to create a first condition or differential where a second condition or event will happen spontaneously. In order to move matter sitting in its own gravitational well you have to spend energy to create (1) a higher rate of time nearby so that it gets to fall away from it i.e. rocket motor. Or, (2) you may create a lower rate of time nearby so that matter falls toward it i.e. gravity. Best scenario would be to use both in order to have propulsion and direction.
If we consider energy, we will think more in terms of power. The energy in a certain container has more power than the same energy in a larger container. Therefore, this energy will tend to move spontaneously toward a larger container if connected to it, thereby achieving spontaneously a lower power. In the emdrive, there are such large and small containers. So, in the emdrive, if we produce a concentration of energy in the small end it will then fall toward the large end. In doing so, it will push equally in all directions but less so toward the large end where power is lost, thereby giving a net force. This reasoning indicates a push or motion of the cavity in the direction from large to small. This is option (1) above and similar to a rocket motor (or an “internal” photon rocket) but without propellant.
This suggests to concentrate the energy in the small end and minimize equilibrium time, possibly by a pulsations duty cycle coupled with better absorption at the large end. Of course, absorption means wasted energy and heat. So, some form of recycling could be devised where “spent” power in the larger section could be concentrated into smaller space and re-injected into the small section... The only power we need to add during recycling is just the amount lost geometrically in the large end.
Which brings me back to the refrigerator...An analogy... If we were to drop a liquid refrigerant on the frustum in the small section of a conic cavity it would takes heat from the frustum and expand and push against it more, for a short time, than on the large end. From the large section, we could pump & recycle the gas with a compressor; re-inject the liquid refrigerant back onto the frustum.... The heat from the condenser would be used to maintain a frustum temperature that would keep evaporating the liquid refrigerant. Momentum from actual molecules would be greater than a few photons?
Food for thought..
-
If the force detected in a given cavity = 1 milliNewton at 100 Watts power with a Q of 25,000, what is the force detected in the same given cavity 100 Watts with a Q of 250,000?
Any ideas folks?
An outlay of more money for a Niobium RC requires a projected/predicted "decent" amount of force increase. Any idea folks?
10mN.
Good Niobium cavities are in the 10^11 region.
Roger's latest International patent clocks in at 3x10^9 using YBCO.
Force scales with Q, Q scales with Rs, Rs scales with freq as F^1/2 for Cu to F^2 for YBCO as attached.
-
If the force detected in a given cavity = 1 milliNewton at 100 Watts power with a Q of 25,000, what is the force detected in the same given cavity 100 Watts with a Q of 250,000?
Any ideas folks?
An outlay of more money for a Niobium RC requires a projected/predicted "decent" amount of force increase. Any idea folks?
10mN.
Good Niobium cavities are in the 10^11 region.
Roger's latest International patent clocks in at 3x10^9 using YBCO.
Force scales with Q, Q scales with Rs, Rs scales with freq as F^1/2 for Cu to F^2 for YBCO as attached.
I saw this on the internet, so it must be true:
It has been almost a half-century since the first Gormley-Bulsh Blowfly rolled out of a small, white frame factory in Aldershot, England. Built at the request of the Italian Army, it was intended for use as a defensive weapon against German observation balloon attacks.
The Gormley-Bulsh people were well- known automobile manufacturers, but had no experience in the new-born aviation industry. This led to one of the most unusual features of the Blowfly--its four- speed transmission (one speed in reverse). The company's chief engineer, Sir Ian Hickey (later to become Mr.Ian Hickey), had proceed- ed along familiar automotive design concepts; his inclusion of the transmission in the airframe design was not discovered until the prototype had already been completed. As the Italians were most anxious to combat the threat of the German balloons, Gormley- Bulsh decided to go ahead with Hickey's original design.These transmissions used straight-cut, nonsynchromesh gears, necessitating additional flight instruction in double-clutching.
Vee belts ran from the transmission pulley to the propeller assembly, mounted above the radiator, to provide the final drive. Another of Hickey's mechanical innovations was the use of burled walnut exhaust valves. These beautiful, hand-turned valves gave the Blowfly a distinctive and not unpleasant castanet-like chatter at idle. The presence of the transmission enabled the designers to employ the standard automotive cranking system in starting the engine. After the engine had been started, the clutch was engaged and the plane could then be taxied in low gear, via a steerable tailwheel. Lubrication was by a rather primitive splash system, which caused the engine to smoke badly whenever it was operated at any speed over 100 rpm.
When compared with other aircraft of the day, the Blowfly's performance was not spectacular. Its top speed of 47 mph (in top gear) was found to be inadequate, especially when coupled with the somewhat severe glide ration of 3:1. The operational ceiling of 420 feet, however, provided to be of some defensive value: German antiaircraft gunners were reluctant to use explosive shells at this low altitude for fear of causing casualties on the ground.
Instrumentation consisted of a tachometer that was redlined at 200 rpm, and a barometer/altimeter of the ever-popular "Witch-and-Children-in-the-Cottage" model. Peak altitude was indicated when the witch came all the way out of the cottage. An oil-temperature gauge was installed in the prototype, but as the oil rarely remained long enough to become very hot, it was felt that this instrument served no real purpose; it was not included on the production model.
The three-cylinder, water-cooled, in-line engine was the same the company had been using in its fantastically unsuccessful two-passenger drop head couple, the Bolide. the engine was rated at 26 bhp, but again, this figure was never actually reached in the production engines because of various material limitations, including the fact that the valves had a tendency to splinter at high revs. Many components of the Bolide automobile were used in the Blowfly: the muffler, radiator, windshield, horn and hood ornament.
An interesting aside to the history of aircraft development was recorded on October 12, 1915, when a Blowfly was used in the first successful test of a phonograph in an airplane. The failure of the Royal Signal Corps to pursue this line of research further was instrumental in assuring the radio's early domination of aircraft communications.
By the end of the war, a total of seven Blowflys had been built at the Aldershot plant, two of these actually being delivered to the Italians. Only one of these planes was ever involved in actual combat. On November 9, 1917, Lt. Giuseppe Imbroglio, a member of the four-man *Dolce Far Niente* squadron,was flying a patrol mission, his first in a Blowfly. He reported that while flying over the Tolmino-Caporetto Sector north of the Bainsizza Plateau at an altitude of 350 feet, he was attacked by a German observation balloon. What ensued was to be the longest recorded dogfight between a captive balloon and an airplane. After a number of furious onslaughts, the Blowfly was brought down when it was hit by a map case thrown by the German observer. Lieutenant Imbroglio was able, by skillful down shifting, to bring his ship to a relatively safe landing, but records captured during the latter stages of the war indicated that the German observer was badly shaken in the encounter and was sent back to Berlin for R&R.
Even though Imbroglio's was the only Blowfly involved in combat, the Germans claimed the destruction of 27 of the planes! It was later determined that this error was due to the plane's smoky lube system: What the Germans had seen was the *same* Blowfly 27 different times, trailing a smoke cloud as it cruised toward its home base.
It is unfortunate that no Blowfly has survived. The last known example saw some use in 1923 after having been converted to a cropduster, but as the oil smoke tended to damage the crops, it was shortly taken out of service. The engineering team responsible for the design and production of the Blowfly remained neutral during World War II, at the urging of the British Government, so there was no chance for development there. The last Blowfly was last seen in late 1956 filled with helium, being used to promote the opening of a supermarket in Grimsby. An ironical use of the machine designed to be the scourge of the balloon! On this same occasion, a sudden squall caused the mooring lines to the floating Blowfly to part, and the sole urvivor of the breed was seen drifting out over the North Sea, where, presumably, it finally fell.
One of my most cherished possessions is a polished mahogany gearshift knob embossed with the famous Gormley- Bulsh emblem. A silent *momento mori* of the gone but not forgotten Blowfly.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
The acceleration will be in the opposite direction of thrust, thus demonstrating that EmDrive also complies with Newton's third law of motion...
Actually, since thrust has been defined as the net force applied to the walls of the cavity by the EM radiation, this does not comply with Newton's third law of motion.
... and thus with conservation of momentum
This is an incorrect logical leap even if the first statement was true. To illustrate with a basic example (related to why he is wrong to make this leap):
A- Take 2 objects and rest
B- Wave a magic wand and cause one of them to gain a huge momentum from nowhere (breaking conservation of momentum)
C- let the moving object collide with the stationary object, and come to a stop, while the stationary object then continues on.
It does not matter that step C conserves conservation of energy and momentum, the total process breaks it due to step B.
Frustum gained momentum is at the expense of internal EmWave lost momentum. This momentum loss as be measured as an additional Q cavity loss due to the energy needed to do work on mass to accelerate it.
What Roger discovered is a new way to transfer momentum from EmWave to mass. No "Laws" are broken. No new physics are needed. Just a new way to transfer EmWave momentum to mass.
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
The acceleration will be in the opposite direction of thrust, thus demonstrating that EmDrive also complies with Newton's third law of motion...
Actually, since thrust has been defined as the net force applied to the walls of the cavity by the EM radiation, this does not comply with Newton's third law of motion.
... and thus with conservation of momentum
This is an incorrect logical leap even if the first statement was true. To illustrate with a basic example (related to why he is wrong to make this leap):
A- Take 2 objects and rest
B- Wave a magic wand and cause one of them to gain a huge momentum from nowhere (breaking conservation of momentum)
C- let the moving object collide with the stationary object, and come to a stop, while the stationary object then continues on.
It does not matter that step C conserves conservation of energy and momentum, the total process breaks it due to step B.
Frustum gained momentum is at the expense of internal EmWave lost momentum. This momentum loss as be measured as an additional Q cavity loss due to the energy needed to do work on mass to accelerate it.
What Roger discovered is a new way to transfer momentum from EmWave to mass. No "Laws" are broken. No new physics are needed. Just a new way to transfer EmWave momentum to mass.
TheTraveler, the problem with repeating this like a mantra is that there doesn't seem to be any credible published description of how it works.., that actually works. That does not mean that predictive models based on a faulty theory are not useful, so long as they do accurately describe and predict. GR does a very good job of describing and predicting, without ever explaining the underlying mechanism of gravitation.
There is no way that.., either as EM waves or photons, microwaves can transfer enough momentum to the frustum to produce even the low end annomolous thrusts reported by some experimenters.
Myself I am on the side that the EmDrive does work, though I am unconvinced to the extent.., that theoretically scaled up predictions imply.
Why.., how.., the exact mechanism is a long way from understood and will almost certainly remain so until long after a truly functional engineering model is publicly demonstrated or independently tested and confirmed... and the confirmation published in a reputable journal.
Hopeful long shots, might include some sort of localized manipulation of inertia or gravity, or as WarpTech describes an analog to the tidal affect of gravitation, created within the involved microwave range... (Hope I did not mangle that too badly dumbing it down WarpTech.)
But in the end it will almost certainly be the result of a far more conventional, interaction between the resonant EM field and an asymmetric distribution of charge or polarity in the frustum walls (which includes the end plates). A situation requiring far less deviation from our conventional understanding of physics.
As long as one relies on the momentum of EM waves or photons, the limitations of any transfer of momentum are pretty clear and well documented in test and practice. While once the focus moves from that sort of exchange of momentum, to the potential associated with an interaction between electromagnetic fields and/or any polarized electrical charge (+ or -) you start dealing with limits on the order of electric motors and maglev systems. There is far more potential for creating momentum from the interaction of the energy of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, than any possible direct exchange between photons/EM waves and a physical mass.
-
There is no way that.., either as EM waves or photons, microwaves can transfer enough momentum to the frustum to produce even the low end annomolous thrusts reported by some experimenters.
Ask any high Q accelerator cavity designed about the forces they need to deal with. Radiation Pressure forces that deform their cavities. Radiation pressures that build via (Q * Pwr).
The EmDrive is no different.
Standard Radiation pressure equation, F = (2 Pwr) / c
Add in Q, F = (2 Q Pwr) / c
Factor in increased guide wavelength inside a waveguide, F = ((2 Q Pwr) / c) (external wavelength / internal guide wavelength)
Nothing new here.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
The acceleration will be in the opposite direction of thrust, thus demonstrating that EmDrive also complies with Newton's third law of motion...
Actually, since thrust has been defined as the net force applied to the walls of the cavity by the EM radiation, this does not comply with Newton's third law of motion.
... and thus with conservation of momentum
This is an incorrect logical leap even if the first statement was true. To illustrate with a basic example (related to why he is wrong to make this leap):
A- Take 2 objects and rest
B- Wave a magic wand and cause one of them to gain a huge momentum from nowhere (breaking conservation of momentum)
C- let the moving object collide with the stationary object, and come to a stop, while the stationary object then continues on.
It does not matter that step C conserves conservation of energy and momentum, the total process breaks it due to step B.
Frustum gained momentum is at the expense of internal EmWave lost momentum. This momentum loss as be measured as an additional Q cavity loss due to the energy needed to do work on mass to accelerate it.
What Roger discovered is a new way to transfer momentum from EmWave to mass. No "Laws" are broken. No new physics are needed. Just a new way to transfer EmWave momentum to mass.
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
The frustum and internal EmWave are an open system.
As for the force of a proton rocket, clearly the EW atmo and vac results of 1.2mN/kWrf say otherwise. Please note the earlier EW paper showed that TE012 mode generated a specific force of 21.3mN/kWrf.
Also note that the earlier paper stating there was no force generated by the Cu frustum was incorrect as attached. I do hope that earlier paper's authors correct the error.
To understand how the EmDrive works, we need to have access to as much of the experimental data as we can get.
Plus we need to understand how the dynamics of the test system may influence with of the TWO forces, Thrust and Acceleration, the test rig will allow to be generated.
So yes there is a new dynamic that needs to be considered in testing EmDrives as the test system itself may influence both the value of the force measured and it's direction.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
They submitted the article around 1 year ago. So I don't see how it would be otherwise. It is logical that the article is revised later, but no new big work added.
They have probably done new things since they submitted the article. I hope that they have well progressed since this time.
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
In doing so, having a balance with "large free swing", you are prone to drift. And having several variables (several force components), that will give you the freedom to explain these drifts according to your theory. Who can do that, who has the mental discipline to not discard the measurements which do not fit into his/her theory in such a situation?
-
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
In doing so, having a balance with "large free swing", you are prone to drift. And having several variables (several force components), that will give you the freedom to explain these drifts according to your theory. Who can do that, who has the mental discipline to not discard the measurements which do not fit into his/her theory in such a situation?
Best of luck. Really. Looking forward to analyse your data.
Just remember these force are not conventional generated forces. Their characteristics just might surprise you.
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7nlkI5K5g
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
So is this now free to talk about after TheTraveller betrayed Eaglework's trust? Might be a good point to start the new thread?
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
The frustum and internal EmWave are an open system.
As for the force of a proton rocket, clearly the EW atmo and vac results of 1.2mN/kWrf say otherwise. Please note the earlier EW paper showed that TE012 mode generated a specific force of 21.3mN/kWrf.
Also note that the earlier paper stating there was no force generated by the Cu frustum was incorrect as attached. I do hope that earlier paper's authors correct the error.
To understand how the EmDrive works, we need to have access to as much of the experimental data as we can get.
Plus we need to understand how the dynamics of the test system may influence with of the TWO forces, Thrust and Acceleration, the test rig will allow to be generated.
So yes there is a new dynamic that needs to be considered in testing EmDrives as the test system itself may influence both the value of the force measured and it's direction.
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
Even if the emDrive works (new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time), no amount of data can ever make Shawyer's theory correct.
Your "2 forces" description is simply nonsensical, contradictory, and contrary to experimental evidence. You now are saying that making it harder to accelerate switches the direction of the applied force. This would mean an emDrive attached to a 10 pound weight would move in one direction, but attached to a 100 pound weight it would move in the other (making up numbers since you haven't provided a way to determine the threshold this would occur at). This is so nonsensical, I don't even know how to explain how wrong it is to you if you don't already understand this.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
While I have no problem with statements that a dielectric may not be necessary for the claimed experimental forces, let's be careful with the attribution to real persons, as apparently Paul March did not consent to TheTraveller posting that stuff (for example about 3.85mN/kWrf of force). Please see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610794#msg1610794.
Suggestion: may have to use a legal disclaimer like the ones used in movies:
"The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred"
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
Let's be careful with the attribution to real persons, as apparently Paul March did not consent to TheTraveller posting that stuff. Please see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610794#msg1610794.
Yes, I had some concerns about whether what TT attached to that post was actually acceptable to share, so I'd rather not discuss it too much unless we see explicit approval from Paul March or EW, even though the document is explicit that it was made after he left EW.
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
Actually, it's a good thought. Such nulling approaches are common in high-precision measurement, because it can give faster response times and better linearity.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016) ;)
So is this now free to talk about after TheTraveller betrayed Eaglework's trust? Might be a good point to start the new thread?
Yes and yes. I have been granted permission to discuss the paper and have already done so elsewhere for my own reasons. Out of respect for you and Chris, thought I'd post my thoughts here. However, ancillary data, slides links etc., should not be assumed to be approved to be released, nor correct. My simple advice is to discuss the aaia paper as it is, without consideration to other info presented from 3rd parties whom may not have been given special permission to do so. Ethics are paramount in any consequential topic, especially one of this potential magnitude.
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
All that effort and they only report nine runs? Since each run amounts to a few minutes and since it may take a day or so to prepare, why aren't there dozens of runs? Why not a hundred? Based on this I suspect the NASA team probably spent just a few days of data taking and a year to write up and seek to publish the results. I further suspect they haven't done swat since. I hope I'm wrong. I hope they are trying to optimize this but I doubt it.
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
The frustum and internal EmWave are an open system.
As for the force of a proton rocket, clearly the EW atmo and vac results of 1.2mN/kWrf say otherwise. Please note the earlier EW paper showed that TE012 mode generated a specific force of 21.3mN/kWrf.
Also note that the earlier paper stating there was no force generated by the Cu frustum was incorrect as attached. I do hope that earlier paper's authors correct the error.
To understand how the EmDrive works, we need to have access to as much of the experimental data as we can get.
Plus we need to understand how the dynamics of the test system may influence with of the TWO forces, Thrust and Acceleration, the test rig will allow to be generated.
So yes there is a new dynamic that needs to be considered in testing EmDrives as the test system itself may influence both the value of the force measured and it's direction.
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
Even if the emDrive works (new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time), no amount of data can ever make Shawyer's theory correct.
Your "2 forces" description is simply nonsensical, contradictory, and contrary to experimental evidence. You now are saying that making it harder to accelerate switches the direction of the applied force. This would mean an emDrive attached to a 10 pound weight would move in one direction, but attached to a 100 pound weight it would move in the other (making up numbers since you haven't provided a way to determine the threshold this would occur at). This is so nonsensical, I don't even know how to explain how wrong it is to you if you don't already understand this.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
The problem with Shawyer is that it promises much for later, but doesn't give any product for now, and never published any vacuum test.
Also, making a working product doesn't make the theory true. For example, the Pantone device really lower fuel consumption, but the Pantone's Plasma theory is totally false.
There are many theories that can explain the Emdrive (MiHsC, Quantum Vacuum, etc)
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
Now, you got yourself a nice seismograph .... with all the noise that comes with it. I know. City is noisy and I pick up cars, trucks, school buses, construction a block away ...
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I guess the opposite is also true... if a new builder gets a null result, some people would spend hours trying to prove that his results are not conclusive, that there are errors in his tests, etc.
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
The problem with Shawyer is that it promises much for later, but doesn't give any product for now, and never published any vacuum test.
Also, making a working product doesn't make the theory true. For example, the Pantone device really lower fuel consumption, but the Pantone's Plasma theory is totally false.
There are many theories that can explain the Emdrive (MiHsC, Quantum Vacuum, etc)
Of course a working EmDrive doesn't prove his theory is true. Neither does not having an accepted theory hinder commercialization of it. The academics will sort it all out while we fly to the Moon.
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
-
I will say this here, the paper was well put together and focused on results not weighted down by theoretical discussions. This should be a clear signal to all camps that observations can precede conclusions on theories. Carving out real lab results first followed by additional testing to focus on a particular theory seems like the best way to deal with a controversial project. Rather than endless bickering about who's theory is right or wrong is pointless unless someone is willing to put a pet theory to a test. Let's agree that the device performed and move on to more tactical endeavors. Such as an experiment designed to prove a specific theory is right or wrong. Look at this as an astronomical observation. It's time for science to get together and explain the observations. It's not that difficult people.
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
-
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
Well, what concerns me, this article is one of the (main) reasons my initial scepsis decreased from, say, 99.9% to 90% (so the chance I give that this effect is real, has in my opinion increased 100-fold). '-)
-
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. ;D
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
As a builder what is has done for me is to add weight to my own testing and at least make me feel that I wasn't chasing a red herring. That this effort wasn't a waste.
There are so many questions that still need to be answered and it going to take time. Will this truly become like mankind inventing fire or will it end up on the scrap heap of oh, that's interesting... Wherever it ends up, I'll say it has been a fun ride. . . hasn't it?
Shell
-
There is no way that.., either as EM waves or photons, microwaves can transfer enough momentum to the frustum to produce even the low end annomolous thrusts reported by some experimenters.
Ask any high Q accelerator cavity designed about the forces they need to deal with. Radiation Pressure forces that deform their cavities. Radiation pressures that build via (Q * Pwr).
The EmDrive is no different.
Standard Radiation pressure equation, F = (2 Pwr) / c
Add in Q, F = (2 Q Pwr) / c
Factor in increased guide wavelength inside a waveguide, F = ((2 Q Pwr) / c) (external wavelength / internal guide wavelength)
Nothing new here.
Please provide me a reference to any battery operated accelerator or even externally powered accelerator operating at microwave frequencies and the net resonant power levels involved in any published data for the EmDrives, being explored.
You seem to me to be trying to compare systems that are not even equivalent, other than in some general basic ways.
Not hearsay or theoretically upscaled projections, just real physical EmDrive systems that have been built, whose design and performance data has been publicly released or at least confirmed by a qualified independent testing facility.
If the EmDrive is a real source of useable thrust, which I believe it will turn out to be, it is already evident that what we know about the interaction between electromagnetic waves and a physical system (a resonant frustum) departs from the bulk of our past experience. An accelerator cavity does not. New physics or just a new application/understanding of existing physics, the two do not represent a like vs like comparison.
One thing that seems a clearly safe bet is that any thrust IS NOT the result of radiation pressure, as either EM waves or photons.
-
....
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
....
That seems to be an attempted argument from authority, citing an implied authority no longer able to respond, to your assumption.
I find it hard to believe that Newton had any opinions or ideas about the way Maxwell's work might fit with his own, given the difference in the historical time frame of the two.
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3vzMuCevA
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3vzMuCevA
Yes ;D
This was evaluated earlier and painstaking confirmed by aero(using meep), somewhere in thread 3 if my memory serves and it has to do with the length of the wire compared to the local wavelength. At this time several kind of loop antennas and similar designs was in discussion to excite this field pattern..
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
The bottom of that bowl is flat, which will throw off your frequencies since it isn't a perfect sphere. A couple of months ago I designed a 5.8Ghz spherical end frustum using Copper hemispheres like these: http://www.necopperworks.com/copperballs.html
The 16" and the 8" hemispheres would work perfectly. Circle of a sphere (spherical caps) the correct diameter would need to be cut from the hemispheres, but each hemisphere should yield 3 or 4 endplates each.
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
That's a pretty high mode. TE or TM? V/m up the middle, I assume it's TM?
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
That's a pretty high mode. TE or TM? V/m up the middle, I assume it's TM?
Yes, TM... well atleast TM in the center. Sorry I forgot to put the vectors on :P
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. :)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4)
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
That's a pretty high mode. TE or TM? V/m up the middle, I assume it's TM?
Yes, TM... well atleast TM in the center. Sorry I forgot to put the vectors on :P
Thanks! With the 22" diameter, I was shooting for ~ 1 GHz TE012 mode. My theory expects a higher thrust from a lower frequency, because the amount of energy stored "is" the counter mass it is pushing against. Energy is Power/frequency so lower frequency is higher energy and mass.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
I was talking about Shawyer's theory, not yours. Yours relies on general relativity, and I need some more time before I can respond to it properly.
For the case I was talking about (Shawyer's theory) the EM field is not "something else" it is part of the system and must be included. The dissipation of the EM field is into the metal of the cavity, so that is not it escaping.
Thermal radiation does escape, but that is less than ideal photon rocket thrust.
Again as described by Shawyer the emDrive is a closed system.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Give you a little hint. E fields exist at night levels externally. I originally thought it was propagation through the wire harness and now am not so certain. Will be trying to map this next year and not prepared to make a definitive statement...but I registered full deflection switching from H field to RF detection on 3 occasions on my old school meter.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument against the validity of the scientific results?
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result. What do our resident experimental physicists (not necessarily, and perhaps even preferably not EM drive builders) think of this outlook? Are the Eagleworks experiments insufficiently rigorous to prove that the drive works by not including a TM212 resonant control cavity?
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't proven divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry.
So you're saying a tm212 cavity in comparison to an RF load is invalid? I suppose the next critique could be multimodal comparisons across other shapes, which then drives the cost up significantly. I have no clue to their budget but everything I've read indicates a very modest resource. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they've worked within their means. A tm212 cavity moved and an RF load didn't is my takeaway. This is enough to stimulate further research and I'm glad this peer reviewed journal has it published. Does it answer every possible question? No. Is it a good start? I'd say yes.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
I never said that heat convection causes the thrust. I've said in numerous posts, it is the gradient in the internal effective potential that gives it a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The fact that internal energy is not stored indefinitely and that heat escapes means, it is not a closed system. The possibility that the dissipation is asymmetrical, allows there to be a gradient in the potential, with which to attract the internal stored equivalent mass to "pull against", before it is dissipated as heat.
-
So you're saying a tm212 cavity in comparison to an RF load is invalid? I suppose the next critique could be multimodal comparisons across other shapes, which then drives the cost up significantly. I have no clue to their budget but everything I've read indicates a very modest resource. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they've worked within their means. A tm212 cavity moved and an RF load didn't is my takeaway. This is enough to stimulate further research and I'm glad this peer reviewed journal has it published. Does it answer every possible question? No. Is it a good start? I'd say yes.
Right now, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I've made the same points to my critical friend. I am, have been, and continue to give Eagleworks (and everyone else whose been working on this for years now) the benefit of the doubt. The concern isn't that Eagleworks has failed to produce thrust, but that they've failed to include any cavity geometry control in the experiment, leaving it insufficiently rigorous to prove that the effect is real.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a good rebuttal of that criticism yet.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment.
IMO, the criticism is completely irrelevant. They showed there "is" a repeatable, measurable force, in a vacuum, where there should not be any force given "their" current understanding of physics. What shape the cavity is, is completely irrelevant. It moved, and to the best of their ability, it wasn't random or noise. That's what's relevant.
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment.
IMO, the criticism is completely irrelevant. They showed there "is" a repeatable, measurable force, in a vacuum, where there should not be any force given "their" current understanding of physics. What shape the cavity is, is completely irrelevant. It moved, and to the best of their ability, it wasn't random or noise. That's what's relevant.
Yes, you are right - barring (again, playing devil's advocate) an unexpected and un-characterized error stemming from the particular experimental setup in the paper. Is this plausible? If this is not an unreasonable concern, they've left a gap in variable control will still leave the collective public in the dark on whether or not these things actually work, instead of absolutely certain of their functionality. :-\
-
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
I was wander how they tested HAL effect when they first discovered it which is 300 times weaker than of this EM drive according to the: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
I never said that heat convection causes the thrust. I've said in numerous posts, it is the gradient in the internal effective potential that gives it a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The fact that internal energy is not stored indefinitely and that heat escapes means, it is not a closed system. The possibility that the dissipation is asymmetrical, allows there to be a gradient in the potential, with which to attract the internal stored equivalent mass to "pull against", before it is dissipated as heat.
This chain of posts is about Shawyer's theory not yours, if your theory works (I need some more time to work though some details), it involves special GR effects that make it an open system. Shawyer's theory does not include those.
Please stop pulling this out of context and changing the subject.
-
*trim long nested quote tree*
Yes, you are right - barring (again, playing devil's advocate) an unexpected and un-characterized error stemming from the particular experimental setup in the paper. Is this plausible? If this is not an unreasonable concern, they've left a gap in variable control will still leave the collective public in the dark on whether or not these things actually work, instead of absolutely certain of their functionality. :-\
Asking for the specific setup of the cylindrical cavity is not the most useful of control tests, it would answer some questions, but not all. There are other concerns that would be easier to put to rest. Using no RF, and just heaters to replicate thermal effects would be much more useful for example. The main issue is the cylindrical cavity idea doesn't actually have a specific error source it is targeting, and it changes too many things. If the goal was just have a control test, they did one, although I have no idea why they thought it would be a helpful one.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
Yes, 100% is not a reasonable goal, but getting rid of or doing detailed characterization of error sources that are within an order of magnitude of the signal does not seem like too much to ask for, especially in a case like this.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
I never said that heat convection causes the thrust. I've said in numerous posts, it is the gradient in the internal effective potential that gives it a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The fact that internal energy is not stored indefinitely and that heat escapes means, it is not a closed system. The possibility that the dissipation is asymmetrical, allows there to be a gradient in the potential, with which to attract the internal stored equivalent mass to "pull against", before it is dissipated as heat.
This chain of posts is about Shawyer's theory not yours, if your theory works (I need some more time to work though some details), it involves special GR effects that make it an open system. Shawyer's theory does not include those.
Please stop pulling this out of context and changing the subject.
I was responding to a different user who replied to me. However, I don't recall reading anywhere that Shawyer said it is a closed system. I do recall reading where he said that the energy stored inside as the Q, decreases as the energy is converted into thrust. This is not a closed system. In a closed system, the energy could not escape at all, and I think he's said it is an open system, for which he is correct. His math is flawed, his words are confusing, and he has confounded experimental data, but when "I" read between the lines of what he really means by those words, he is describing my theory. The mass inside accelerates toward the rear, and the frustum moves forward to conserve momentum. That is what he's saying, as best he knows how.
It seems bassackwards but it's not, once you realize it's not a closed system and there is a potential difference between the frustum and the energy inside it, because that energy is leaving the cavity and heating the copper asymmetrically forming a potential gradient.
Personally, I feel sorry for the guy. It's a complicated problem, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before since Newton, whose mind wasn't clouded with preconceptions. Shawyer has proposed an incorrect mathematical theory, but his intuition is correct. He understands how it works, he just doesn't know how to do the math.
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
It looks like you are using spherical end caps. Have you tried with the modified frustum geometry with a flat major diameter end plate and a shaped minor diameter end cap? For modes, would it matter that the flat end is superconducting?
-
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
I was wander how they tested HAL effect when they first discovered it which is 300 times weaker than of this EM drive according to the: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html
This paper says that the Emdrive's thrust is 300 times than other zero propellant propulsion.
light sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33–6.67 μN∕kW (or 0.0033–0.0067 mN∕kW) range.
It is not about Hall thrusters. Hall thrusters are not zero propellant thrusters.
also, the conservation of Momentum (CoM) make that, even without mesuring the thrust of a given Hall thruster, we can know that it works, since it ejects matter at high speed. It is standard physics. The same type of proof is not needed than for a New physics device
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
Energy is also lost or disipated as a current through the frustum walls. The interior walls of the frustum act as the ground plane for the MW antenna introducing the resonating EM field and interact with that same interior EM field, as an antenna of sorts, which converts a portion of the EM field back into an electrical current. That interaction returns a portion off the EM energy that began as a current potential at the antenna, back to current and eventually to ground.
The total energy balance is not limited just to a heat loss, but there should be a deficit in the total measurable energy losses, when compared to the initial energy introduced, equal to the energy required to produce whatever measureable thrust there might be.
Under most classical transfers of momentum from magnetic and/or electromagnetic sources, like an electric motor the motor frame is fixed in place usually to earth or a larger mass, so there is an equal and opposite force arrangement we are familiar with, even understanding the force itself is generated electromagnetically. In the case of an EmDrive one might argue that a polarized difference in electrical and/or electromagnetic potential between the field resonating inside the frustum and the polarity of the electric current or even electromagnetic field associated with the current in the frustum walls, provides an unconventional equal and opposite polarity or electromagnetic force arrangement, where only that portion of the resulting momentum transferred to the physical frustum is observable, from the outside.
Think of the frustum essentially simulating a long copper tube, through which a comsentrated electromagentic field travels as a pulse. That would invoke a Lenze force reaction, that would in the abscence of opposing forces or any ridged attachment, result in an observable transfer of momentum to the copper tube, which could be measured as thrust. I don't believe this is really what is happening, because the dynamics seem far more complex, than this simplified example... But it should provide sufficient reason to look closer at the field dynamics that may be at play between the frustum and the EM field within.
Things would get even more complex because even though both the EM field inside the frustum and the current and Em field associated with the frustum walls would share a frequency of say 2.4 GHz, the rate that each updates at, should the frustum move, would be slightly different, by an amount equal to the difference in the velocity of an electrical current through the material of the frustum walls, as compared the speed of light rate that the EM field would update at.
-
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
...
Actually, the copper frustum is interacting with "something else". It is interacting with the EM field inside it. This field is NOT trapped inside, it escapes through dissipation. So by definition, it is an open system. It could only be considered a closed system if the energy inside could not escape. Meaning, once stored, it would stay there indefinitely without decaying. That is not the case.
Heat escapes, which is very different to an interaction imparting the thrust levels being measured.
I never said that heat convection causes the thrust. I've said in numerous posts, it is the gradient in the internal effective potential that gives it a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The fact that internal energy is not stored indefinitely and that heat escapes means, it is not a closed system. The possibility that the dissipation is asymmetrical, allows there to be a gradient in the potential, with which to attract the internal stored equivalent mass to "pull against", before it is dissipated as heat.
This chain of posts is about Shawyer's theory not yours, if your theory works (I need some more time to work though some details), it involves special GR effects that make it an open system. Shawyer's theory does not include those.
Please stop pulling this out of context and changing the subject.
I was responding to a different user who replied to me. However, I don't recall reading anywhere that Shawyer said it is a closed system. I do recall reading where he said that the energy stored inside as the Q, decreases as the energy is converted into thrust. This is not a closed system. In a closed system, the energy could not escape at all, and I think he's said it is an open system, for which he is correct. His math is flawed, his words are confusing, and he has confounded experimental data, but when "I" read between the lines of what he really means by those words, he is describing my theory. The mass inside accelerates toward the rear, and the frustum moves forward to conserve momentum. That is what he's saying, as best he knows how.
It seems bassackwards but it's not, once you realize it's not a closed system and there is a potential difference between the frustum and the energy inside it, because that energy is leaving the cavity and heating the copper asymmetrically forming a potential gradient.
Personally, I feel sorry for the guy. It's a complicated problem, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before since Newton, whose mind wasn't clouded with preconceptions. Shawyer has proposed an incorrect mathematical theory, but his intuition is correct. He understands how it works, he just doesn't know how to do the math.
Shawyer has not said it is a closed system. He has described it as a closed system, and then made an irrelevant statement that he claims means it is an open system. What it really means is that he doesn't know the definition of an open system (or is being deliberately deceptive.) The idea of an open vs closed system (and the direction something moves when a force is applied) should be intuitive, but since he gets it wrong, I'd say his intuition isn't very good either. If the emDrive works, he got very lucky stumbling onto it.
What you are describing again is your theory, which still doesn't make sense to me, but if I have time I will look at it closer this weekend. While you did reply to someone else, this whole chain started with my post about Shawyer's theory, but you have responded each time in a way that reads as if your theory somehow justifies Shawyer's mistakes.
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
I am hoping people will write in and say stuff like that, they do have a letters page for rebuttals and other opinions. I don't feel sufficiently scientifically competent in all this to venture this kind of opinion.
-
However, I don't recall reading anywhere that Shawyer said it is a closed system. I do recall reading where he said that the energy stored inside as the Q, decreases as the energy is converted into thrust. This is not a closed system. In a closed system, the energy could not escape at all, and I think he's said it is an open system, for which he is correct. His math is flawed, his words are confusing, and he has confounded experimental data, but when "I" read between the lines of what he really means by those words, he is describing my theory. The mass inside accelerates toward the rear, and the frustum moves forward to conserve momentum. That is what he's saying, as best he knows how.
It seems bassackwards but it's not, once you realize it's not a closed system and there is a potential difference between the frustum and the energy inside it, because that energy is leaving the cavity and heating the copper asymmetrically forming a potential gradient.
Personally, I feel sorry for the guy. It's a complicated problem, unlike anything anyone has ever seen before since Newton, whose mind wasn't clouded with preconceptions. Shawyer has proposed an incorrect mathematical theory, but his intuition is correct. He understands how it works, he just doesn't know how to do the math.
That's exactly how I see things too. Shawyer describes a shift in the momentum of EM waves as they travel back and forth in a tapered cavity (as McCulloch also does with a different theoretical framework involving quantised inertia). Then the frustum accelerates in the opposite direction to conserve momentum. While doing this work, the EM energy decays due to the momentum exchange with the cavity and power dissipation (ohmic loss) through walls, then Q drops, and so does thrust. Energy must be continuously added from an RF power source to maintain this conversion and the resulting thrust. Actually not continuous but pulsed power, to allow the travelling EM wavefront to do its work and decay before injecting a new pulse of RF power into the cavity, and so forth.
While all this can be extracted from Shawyer's theory when one reads, as you said, "between the lines", I really don't understand why he tries to explain the force only by the radiation pressure imbalance on the two end plates, which in my opinion is just a consequence of the increased inertial mass of photons travelling backwards and of the momentum exchange between those travelling EM waves and the cavity; i.e. the increased radiation pressure on the big end plate is not directly the cause of the cavity's forward acceleration.
To me the "Shawyer effect" as TheTraveller likes to call it, really is the photon momentum variation, hence the movement of the EM wave inertial center of mass (as in your theory Todd) inside a tapered resonant cavity (between the two end plates and not upon them), that causes a reaction force to appear, satisfying conservation of momentum. The cavity accelerates forwards while the momentum of photons is increased when they travel backwards (or, if you prefer as you explain it slightly differently, while the EM wave inertial center of mass is continuously shifted backwards).
Anyway, it is true that Shawyer manages to predict accurately the thrust magnitude using the radiation pressure on end plates. But to me, it is not because the radiation pressure imbalance is the cause of thrust. It is because the radiation pressure is a collateral effect directly proportional to the real cause of thrust: the dynamic photon momentum fluctuation and EM wave inertial center of mass displacement in a tapered resonant cavity.
Of course this hypothesis has to be tested thoroughly, mathematically and experimentally.
While you did reply to someone else, this whole chain started with my post about Shawyer's theory, but you have responded each time in a way that reads as if your theory somehow justifies Shawyer's mistakes.
It could be seen like this. Although being different, I too see there is a possible connection between the underlying principles presented by Roger Shawyer, Mike McCulloch, notsosureofit and Todd Desiato (even with Jim Woodward's Mach effect transient mass fluctuation). It is a matter of how we see things through different pairs of glasses.
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
-
Hey mods,
With the paper's official release last night (and approaching half a million reads on this thread) how about starting a new thread today so we can pick up with discussion from a good page-turning point.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120
Thanks!
We may need a party thread too! :>
-
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
It looks like you are using spherical end caps. Have you tried with the modified frustum geometry with a flat major diameter end plate and a shaped minor diameter end cap? For modes, would it matter that the flat end is superconducting?
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I can simulate the major end as a perfect conductor and the rest silver per the patent, however none of the special superconducting properties such as Meissner effect are calculated, only the conductivity.
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
What does unscientific mean?... To you?
An engineering success can remain unscientific for a significant period of time, until a successful scientific model of description, prediction and/or the underlying mechanism(s) is presented and published by a reputable journal. So far there are a number of theoretical models, some of which might be argued as mutually exclusive and none of which are entirely without persistent demands of "take this part on blind faith" or "trust me (us)" on this.
Notice that the EW paper wound up with the "theory" stripped out and published as in essence as documentation of the data accumulated and conclusions, drawn from testing. Even so it likely would not have made to publication had the data not confirmed a repeatable annomolus thrust in a vacuum chamber.
The data EW recorded is solid and repeatable. The race for a successful theory is still underway. One is a matter of engineering. The other science. The science will never be accepted until it is either based enitirely on an existing understanding of the laws of physics or establishes a realistic means to test and confirm or refute whatever model/theory is being presented.
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
-
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I don't understand neither. Perhaps the last two columns refer to the real dimensions of a physical engineered small reflector that had to be manually corrected to some extent?
-
It seems to me that the TE013 mode looks very similar to a cylinder, but instead of having 3 "identical" amplitude envelopes of the same frequency, we have 3 different ones "at the same frequency". What I mean is, the mode along the z-axis has 3 different frequencies that increase in frequency from small end to big end. The mode radial from the z-axis also has 3 different frequencies that decrease in frequency from small end to big end, such that the sum of the square give the "same" resonant frequency.
ω2 = ω2mn + ω2p
ω2 = ω201 + ω23
Does this imply that energy is being exchanged between the two modes? This would only be a slight modification to @Notsosureofit's theory. Both of us have assumed the frequency as a whole shifts, but perhaps we need to break this down into the vector components to see the frequency shifts.
-
I'm working on trying it using the new frustum geometry but I am having trouble understanding what the last two columns in this table mean. They aren't referenced anywhere in the paper. What could R3 error be referring to?
I don't understand neither. Perhaps the last two columns refer to the real dimensions of a physical engineered small reflector that had to be manually corrected to some extent?
That was my guess too. If that is the case, then I only need the first 4 columns. It all seems to work out geometrically without the error and correction. With the tolerances being so small I will need to make the mesh very dense. This will make processing times much longer... :'(
-
My friend made the argument that Eagleworks' results are invalid because they did not account for error sources in their own apparatus by swapping out the test frustum and replace it with a cylinder that resonates at the same frequency with the same mode. Is this a reasonable argument?
Seems like that argument has made the rounds with the exception of maintaining mode. In a perfect world, dozens of equal mass cavities all resonating at TM212 would likely not satisfy skeptics. RF loads are a classic RF termination and thermal absorption component. In effect, energy and heat are contained in a relatively small space.
The slippery slope of standard cavities involves more than shape, it's mass, material, thermal and electrical properties all needing to be identical to the original test article. Not as simple as one might think.
They're rather adamant that it just needs to replicate TM212 and be comparable in mass, otherwise Eagleworks has no adequate control on the apparatus itself, with the 50 ohm load being an insufficient test to demonstrate a divergent result.
Ideally, a round, cylindrical, square or rectangular cavity or any combination of the aforementioned could satisfy some, but not all skeptics I would assume. But we know there would be those asking for additional mechanical variations. I look at this as one paper with strong enough evidence that it should encourage further research, pro or con. Evidence comes from mulletron and zellerium that rectangular and/or circular cavities provided no measurable thrust. I could see a limited budget curtailing multi-cavity construction. Just don't think this is a deal breaker. Force was measured.
The problem isn't satisfying skeptics. The criticism is that it's an insufficiently rigorous test to be considered a fundamentally valid scientific experiment. It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment.
Do everything they say and they will invent yet another criticism and make more demands. If one has limited resources, should one take the NASA results and try and optimize them or listen to critics and do more and more basic tests first. I say ignore the critics, they can organize their own experiments if they wish, and build on the NASA results.
-
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
I think it is impossible to characterize 100% of the potential error sources.. Only to test it in space..
I was wander how they tested HAL effect when they first discovered it which is 300 times weaker than of this EM drive according to the: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html
Even testing it I space and assuming it goes, the critics will not be satisfied. They will try and argue if you accounted for all possible interactions between currents and the earths magnetic field or something along those lines.
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
I took a look at the linked articles and some of the links within those and find some of the statements and conclusions to be problematic.
Take the following;
The problem is that while the existence of the quantum vacuum has been experimentally proven to exist,
A statement made without reference. There are experiments were the results and conclusions are attributed to one or another characterization of the quantum vacuum or zero point energy/field, but none that I have seen that prove the existence of the whatever definition of vacuum energy, quantum vacuum or the composition of any zero point filed.., is.... And to be honest the same seems to be the case for Woodward's Mach Effect.
Virtual particles are called virtual for a reason.., though they are useful components within the larger context of quantum theory, they are inherently unmeasurable. That same applies to much of the EM spectrum associated with the quantum vacuum.., though an argument could be made that the very real detectable background EM radiation the universe offers up, is at least a component of vacuum energy... And where the Mach Effect is involved until there is some consensus defining the mechanism(s) of inertia and gravitation as a functional component of the Mach Effect, it again is an untested.., and perhaps untestable model.
The brass ring in science has come to be so closely associated with a focus on the theoretical side of the process of advancement, that connecting the theory/model to some direct experimentally provable test, seems often forgotten and the underlying assumptions along with any engineering success assumed, accepted as proof of theory. That is the same mistake it seems, from where I sit, that Shawyer has made. His error just seems more obvious because he began from an engineering standpoint rather than, an interpretation of established science... Or so it seems.
I am not here trying to say or even imply that the theoretical models presented by either of the primaries involved are not accurate theoretical descriptions, just asserting that what I have seen, does to me seem to rise to the level of proving the underlying model.
A theoretical model can be a useful and successful tool in the design and development of a successful engineering model, without the theoretical model itself being an accurate description of reality (nature).
For the time being and especially where DIYs with limited budgets and physical resources are concerned, it would seem far more productive to chase the engineering, than attempt to design for the purposes of testing one or another theoretical/model. Once any experimenter developers an EmDrive system that generates thrust sufficiently above the noise, systemic and experimental error, there will be time enough to chase down the underlying mechanism. A task made far easier given data supporting an indisputable thrust.
And all of this rambling from one who has always been more interested in the theory and theoretical physics than the dirty work of experiment and practical applications. A dreamer of sorts rather than a builder, at least where science is concerned.
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
-
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
I took a look at the linked articles and some of the links within those and find some of the statements and conclusions to be problematic.
Take the following;
The problem is that while the existence of the quantum vacuum has been experimentally proven to exist,
A statement made without reference. There are experiments were the results and conclusions are attributed to one or another characterization of the quantum vacuum or zero point energy/field, but none that I have seen that prove the existence of the whatever definition of vacuum energy, quantum vacuum or the composition of any zero point filed.., is.... And to be honest the same seems to be the case for Woodward's Mach Effect.
Virtual particles are called virtual for a reason.., though they are useful components within the larger context of quantum theory, they are inherently unmeasurable. That same applies to much of the EM spectrum associated with the quantum vacuum.., though an argument could be made that the very real detectable background EM radiation the universe offers up, is at least a component of vacuum energy... And where the Mach Effect is involved until there is some consensus defining the mechanism(s) of inertia and gravitation as a functional component of the Mach Effect, it again is an untested.., and perhaps untestable model.
The brass ring in science has come to be so closely associated with a focus on the theoretical side of the process of advancement, that connecting the theory/model to some direct experimentally provable test, seems often forgotten and the underlying assumptions along with any engineering success assumed, accepted as proof of theory. That is the same mistake it seems, from where I sit, that Shawyer has made. His error just seems more obvious because he began from an engineering standpoint rather than, an interpretation of established science... Or so it seems.
I am not here trying to say or even imply that the theoretical models presented by either of the primaries involved are not accurate theoretical descriptions, just asserting that what I have seen, does to me seem to rise to the level of proving the underlying model.
A theoretical model can be a useful and successful tool in the design and development of a successful engineering model, without the theoretical model itself being an accurate description of reality (nature).
For the time being and especially where DIYs with limited budgets and physical resources are concerned, it would seem far more productive to chase the engineering, than attempt to design for the purposes of testing one or another theoretical/model. Once any experimenter developers an EmDrive system that generates thrust sufficiently above the noise, systemic and experimental error, there will be time enough to chase down the underlying mechanism. A task made far easier given data supporting an indisputable thrust.
And all of this rambling from one who has always been more interested in the theory and theoretical physics than the dirty work of experiment and practical applications. A dreamer of sorts rather than a builder, at least where science is concerned.
The quantum vacuum is an integral part of the theory of quantum electrodynamics. QED may be the dominant theory but it is not the only theory. The quantum vacuum is inferred from experimental results but those results may be explained in other theories also. So, I agree, the quantum vacuum is more widely assumed than proven to exist.
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
-
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
I took that into account when I calculated the time needed to create a new big bang. I considered a constant thrust in the reference frame of the ship. Of course, the thrust decrease in the departure reference frame. Also I used relativist formula for Kinetic energy, that is not the square of the speed for relativistic speeds. :P
-
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe :)
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
-
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
-
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
Indeed. Wikipedia editors censor emerging ideas and concepts. One of my hero's, Randy Mills of Brilliant Light Power has been harshly censored, they delete all his data and papers, as well as supporting comments by other scientists, and only allow criticism of his ideas because he's not "mainstream". They don't have to have a page but if they do have a page they should allow it to be fair.
-
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
Did you actually read that page? There were all of 3 keeps, only one of which was by a registered user.
That registered user at the end said:
Regardless, I would now concur with jps and friends that *even if Mike is right*, we absolutely do need a great many more secondary sources to say so before we give MiHsC wikipedia's imprimatur, and that yes, under the circumstances it would be really quite difficult to get some wording in there that actually managed to achieve NPOV. And NPOV is not really something we're allowed to fudge, even if we all agreed that it was worth doing, which I very much doubt is going to happen. Does that all sound about right?
The result of the discussion was based on the fact that not enough physicists were finding the theory worth discussing to consider it a notable topic, regardless of whether said physicists found the theory to be correct or not.
-
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe :)
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
-
Here's the Hackaday article on the EW's paper publication.
http://hackaday.com/2016/11/19/em-drive-paper-published-by-eagleworks-team/
Looking at the comments if I see another person going on about have they eliminated every possible source of error, that's such an open phrase that you could be trying to resolve that for an infinity of time. Also a lot of the time such commentators never even come up with any suggestions of what these errors are meant to be, it's like they are just parroting others.
-
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe :)
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
Lucky timing when I checked for new posts, and I don't think there is a warning if you are replying to a post that was deleted as you type. I have a response here since you responded, but if you would rather drop it, just delete your post, and PM me and I'll delete my responses as well.
Equivalent units do not make things equal, or even proportional. For example, I can travel down the highway at different speeds in my car, but my choice of speed does not have any effect on the speed of Pluto relative to the sun.
In this case it is obvious velocity has no effect. An object in orbit (~7 km/s) and a object at the same altitude with (temporarily) no velocity relative to the earth both have the same potential energy, just very different kinetic energies.
-
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true" ;D
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe :)
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
Lucky timing when I checked for new posts, and I don't think there is a warning if you are replying to a post that was deleted as you type. I have a response here since you responded, but if you would rather drop it, just delete your post, and PM me and I'll delete my responses as well.
Equivalent units do not make things equal, or even proportional. For example, I can travel down the highway at different speeds in my car, but my choice of speed does not have any effect on the speed of Pluto relative to the sun.
In this case it is obvious velocity has no effect. An object in orbit (~7 km/s) and a object at the same altitude with (temporarily) no velocity relative to the earth both have the same potential energy, just very different kinetic energies.
Gravity acts at the speed of light. Since you change the centre point of mass of the earth when you drive your car, you change the gravity relative to pluto. This effect is very very very tiny and we can't measure it, but it doesn't mean there is no effect at all ;)
I am pretty sure it could be calculated even if its almost neglabile, somewhere at the x-th order it's there.
Yeah it's nitpicking ;D but based on already known physical facts 8)
#Sorry couldn't resist. If it is consent to delete this column of posts I will delete this too :)
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
...snip...
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back :)
(http://cdn.iflscience.com/images/82572f12-86ff-5ab7-ac19-01abb15eb9fa/default-1464383321-276-welcome-back-baby-spacex-completes-historic-rocket-landing.jpg)
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
...
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
After reading your and White et.al.'s AIAA article, (PhD University of Connecticut) astrophysicist recants and now says that he would like to see the EM Drive tested in Space:
<<I’ve been pretty critical of this experiment from the get go, and I remain highly skeptical. However, even as a skeptic I have to admit the work is valid research. This is how science is done if you want to get it right. Do experiments, submit them to peer review, get feedback, and reevaluate. For their next trick the researchers would like to try the experiment in space. I admit that’s an experiment I’d like to see.>>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/19/nasas-physics-defying-em-drive-passes-peer-review/#4394778476e2
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
At the same time, anyone looking to build one needs to know how to work with high power electronics. Safety first!
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
At the same time, anyone looking to build one needs to know how to work with high power electronics. Safety first!
Absolutely. There are a select few public figures in the united states, shell, monomorphic, Paul and myself who possess the knowledge and skill specific to the design, construction and testing of the emdrive. We all hope that we will not be the only ones in the weeks and months to come. We unofficially consider ourselves as a builders alliance or guild but don't waste time on formalities. We respect and trust each other and would welcome others such as mulletron and zellerium whom are now on a temporary hiatus. We always caution those considering a build to gather knowledge first. Even with my high power RF background, I studied for months before announcing a build on nsf. The device is dangerous if mishandled. Page 1 of each thread makes that crystal clear. We need labs to sign on for further testing. All of us could help them facilitate the experiment depending on our available time to consult, finish our own experiments and have a life.
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have the position sensor at the big end side and the capacitor force sensor on the small end side as shown in Fig 2. I will read the paper again to see if that is stated.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement and the distance travelled due to the capacitor force device increasing. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have two the X-Y-Z stages, one for the capacitor force generator on the small end side and the other for the distance sensor on the big end side.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
From my own testing, the thermal forces have a much slower response time and are generally not considered an impulse response due to the slow absorption and radiation of heat. Copper is notoriously slow in this regard. I found this out first hand while using a blowtorch to seam solder the frustum. Then on the torsion beam, thermal effects at 400°F heatsinking of the magnetron core spread out very slowly. I made a half dozen videos of this on YouTube. So, cg variants would be very long periods on a copper mass of 7kg, not at all similar to the timing shown in the aaia paper. Paul will have insight on his config, but thermal displacement due to cg variation of a horizontal torsion beam are many time greater than the the impulse period in the aaia paper. Just my 2 cents Zen...
https://youtu.be/27LA98ahuYQ
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzOHq5WbQ8k
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
In all those simulated interstellar projects, nowhere we see the amount and mass of the nuclear fuel needed onboard.
An interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri with 400 mN/kWrf propellantless EmDrive powered by a 2 MWe nuclear fission electric generator on board of a 90-ton spaceship would take about a hundred years, as explained in the NSF featured article Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/), quoting Harold White.
Has someone calculated the amount of nuclear fuel consumed to power constantly a 2 MWe generator over a journey of 100 years? Whatever the type of fissible atoms you try, it amounts to thousands of tons of fuel, more than 10x the mass of the ship itself!
Did I make the maths wrong? If so my apologies, but if this is right, all these interstellar projects with nuclear fission reactors onboard are nonsense.
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
In all those simulated interstellar projects, nowhere we see the amount and mass of the nuclear fuel needed onboard.
An interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri with 400 mN/kWrf propellantless EmDrive powered by a 2 MWe nuclear fission electric generator on board of a 90-ton spaceship would take about a hundred years, as explained in the NSF featured article Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/), quoting Harold White.
Has someone calculated the amount of nuclear fuel consumed to power constantly a 2 MWe generator over a journey of 100 years? Whatever the type of fissible atoms you try, it amounts to thousands of tons of fuel, more than 10x the mass of the ship itself!
Did I make the maths wrong? If so my apologies, but if this is right, all these interstellar projects with nuclear fission reactors onboard are nonsense.
Very good commentary. When I read about these concepts years ago, I came to the same conclusion. There are still those promoting these concepts, but the reality is they are not practical for interstellar missions. Multigenerational coasters are not where I'd like to see research money spent.
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
1x10^3kWRf at 50% conversion efficiency needs 2x10^3kWe or 2MWe generator that can operate for 10 ship years which is 3.6 ship years to get there, 3.6 ship years to get back and 2.8 ship years to explore the local system.
Seems doable for a 1,000t ship with a 2MWe power supply.
Of course local surface shuttles would be EmDrive powered and at 1g, the mother may be able to land.
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
1x10^3Rf at 50% conversion efficiency needs 2x10^3kWe or 2MWe generator that can operate for 10 ship years which is 3.6 ship years to get there, 3.6 ship years to get back and 2.8 ship years to explore the local system.
Seems doable for a 1,000t ship with a 2MWe power supply.
A ten year mission to explore new worlds, seek out new life, and boldly go...? I'm up for it!
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
Maybe you're right but 100% efficiency is a false assumption. This is not a nuclear bomb… Uranium does not undergo complete fission in a plant, and then there is the efficiency of the turbine and electric generator.
Using the numbers provided by the World Nuclear Association (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx) (who is inclined to show their propaganda in their best light, as they promote nuclear fission energy), the state-of-the art 1000 MWe power plant (EPR with 5% enriched U and high burn-up) uses 19.1 tons of fuel per year at 100% output. Let's round this up to 20 tons.
That is (rough linear conversion, maybe it is not suitable) 4 tons of fuel to power a 2 MWe for 100 years. Doable indeed.
But I don't know how the efficiency of a small space nuclear reactor with limited cooling capacity (only radiation cooling to space) competes with a big Earth-based high-power generating unit with water and steam cooling towers. Thus my numbers may be completely off.
NB: TheTraveller often assumes a great EmDrive efficiency giving continuous 1g acceleration, but I used Eagleworks' more conservative specific thrust of 0.4 N/kWrf giving 1 milli-g of continuous acceleration, hence much longer interstellar mission times.
-
Interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGlAsk6znQ
Lest we forget:
According to Roger Shawyer's public comments.
Boeing entered into an license agreement with SPR / Roger Shawyer in 2007 whereby SPR gave Boeing ALL of SPR's EmDrive technology.
2 years later, in 2009, Boeing enetered into a contact with SPR to design & deliver the design of a Flight Thruster, which SPR delivered in 2010.
Boeing, using the SPR design data built a Flight Thruster and informed SPR it worked to the contract specs and paid SPR as per the contract.
Boeing they cut all ties with SPR and publicly declared it was no longer involved with Roger Shawyer.
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
Maybe you're right but 100% efficiency is a false assumption. This is not a nuclear bomb… Uranium does not undergo complete fission in a plant, and then there is the efficiency of the turbine and electric generator.
Using the numbers provided by the World Nuclear Association (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx) (who is inclined to show their propaganda in their best light, as they promote nuclear fission energy), the state-of-the art 1000 MWe power plant (EPR with 5% enriched U and high burn-up) uses 19.1 tons of fuel per year at 100% output. Let's round this up to 20 tons.
That is (rough linear conversion, maybe it is not suitable) 4 tons of fuel to power a 2 MWe for 100 years. Doable indeed.
But I don't know how the efficiency of a small space nuclear reactor with limited cooling capacity (only radiation cooling to space) competes with a big Earth-based high-power generating unit with water and steam cooling towers. Thus my numbers may be completely off.
NB: TheTraveller often assumes a great EmDrive efficiency giving continuous 1g acceleration, but I used Eagleworks' more conservative specific thrust of 0.4 N/kWrf giving 1 milli-g of continuous acceleration, hence much longer interstellar mission times.
ALL the experimental data shows Force scales linear with (Q * Pwr).
For sure there are significant engineering challenges as Q increases. But nothing that good and clever engineers can't overcome,
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
The EmDrive worked in 2002:
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf
And in 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
2006 rotary test:
https://youtu.be/5P3pzbEnwuA , sound is air compressor for rotary air bearing.
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
Or at least within the realm of dreams.., with what is currently understood.
You are talking about relative velocities that could result in the destruction of the ship solely based on collisions with interstellar dust, atoms and ions (bare nuclei).
You'll need to add both mass and technologies to engineer a means to avoid such collisions... but then you will run into truly testing some of the predicted limitations associated with the energies required for acceleration within the context of special relativity.., and just how even low end relativistic velocities might affect boundary condition interactions between any massive object and the quantum vacuum (QV)... even assuming an immutable QV. Step into the world and potential of a mutable QV and you will almost certainly need even more new technology, like a warp drive...
The point is we are only just at the beginning of an era where the gap between what we know and what we imagine might be, begins to become significant and potentially testable.
If predictions of special relativity are even close to realistic and a QV does exist, it would seem, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Just as what we have seen in accelerations associated with the Pioneer Anomaly tests the boundaries of our current understanding, so will any attempts at even greater adventures and excursions into the depths of the unknown.
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
The EmDrive worked in 2002:
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf
And in 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
2006 rotary test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P3pzbEnwuA , sound is air compressor for rotary air bearing.
Yes, I saw those years ago and are one of the reasons I started looking for data and found this site. I have been following it ever since. However, and this is a big however, what the drive lacked back then was credibility, something it struggles with to this day. That can only come from group effort from respected engineers and scientists, which is what we are following now. Whether it worked back then is irrelevant without credibility. Otherwise I would have been happily writing from my personal moon base by now.
-
Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
-
Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
The low riders are cavities with loss creating dielectrics.
Personal corro with Roger says field intensity is NOT a factor.
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
Or at least within the realm of dreams.., with what is currently understood.
You are talking about relative velocities that could result in the destruction of the ship solely based on collisions with interstellar dust, atoms and ions (bare nuclei).
You'll need to add both mass and technologies to engineer a means to avoid such collisions... but then you will run into truly testing some of the predicted limitations associated with the energies required for acceleration within the context of special relativity.., and just how even low end relativistic velocities might affect boundary condition interactions between any massive object and the quantum vacuum (QV)... even assuming an immutable QV. Step into the world and potential of a mutable QV and you will almost certainly need even more new technology, like a warp drive...
The point is we are only just at the beginning of an era where the gap between what we know and what we imagine might be, begins to become significant and potentially testable.
If predictions of special relativity are even close to realistic and a QV does exist, it would seem, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Just as what we have seen in accelerations associated with the Pioneer Anomaly tests the boundaries of our current understanding, so will any attempts at even greater adventures and excursions into the depths of the unknown.
The obstacle avoidance issue plus a heap more are serious engineering challenges to be sure.
Point was 10 year, ship time, interstellar voyages can be done at 1g. Should add 3.6 ship years would be 6 Earth years, so not so much time difference, 10 year ship voyage would be 14.8 Earth years.
-
Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
The low riders are cavities with loss creating dielectrics.
Personal corro with Roger says field intensity is NOT a factor.
1) Data is plotted in Log-Log Plot. Most experimental data will appear roughly linear (hence as a power law) when plotted in Log-Log Plots. Even though that data is plotted in a Log-Log plot over 6 orders of magnitude, there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
observing that data appears as an approximate line on a log–log scale and concluding that the data follows a power law – is invalid.[ Clauset, A.; Shalizi, C. R.; Newman, M. E. J. (2009). "Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data". SIAM Review. 51 (4): 661–703] https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1062
In fact, many other functional forms appear approximately linear on the log–log scale, and simply evaluating the goodness of fit of a linear regression on logged data using the coefficient of determination (R2) may be invalid, as the assumptions of the linear regression model, such as Gaussian error, may not be satisfied; in addition, tests of fit of the log–log form may exhibit low statistical power, as these tests may have low likelihood of rejecting power laws in the presence of other true functional forms. While simple log–log plots may be instructive in detecting possible power laws, and have been used dating back to Pareto in the 1890s, validation as a power laws requires more sophisticated statistics
2) Predicted data assumes the ad hoc Shawyer "Design Factor" ~ 0.6
No justification is given for this assumption, an assumption which may actually be negated by some of the geometrical designs included in the plot. For example, what would be the correctly calculated Shawyer Design Factor for the Cannae device ?, I doubt it would be 0.6 ??? :o
Shawyer himself does not plot the data in this plot using his prescription on how to calculate the "Design Factor" and therefore his prescription on how to calculate the "Design Factor" is made to appear more as an ad hoc quantity introduced into his original calculations in order to make it fit observations or expectations.
If the Shawyer Design Factor is not an ad hoc quantity, it should have been calculated according to Shawyer's prescription in this plot.
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
And they would be wrong.
EW measured 21.3mN/kWrf in TE012. 55, 4uN @ 2.6Wrf.
Why did they not use that mode????
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Instead, it seems it may be the Cannae (Fetta) Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results. A better description is available in this US Patent Application http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389330;image)
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389330;image)
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
It was improper for Shawyer to assume the Design Factor to be 0.6 for the Cannae device.
The problem for Shawyer in explaining the Cannae device is that if Shawyer follows his calculations for his Design Factor for the Cannae device, it would give a very small value for the Design Factor, much smaller than 0.6 used for his plot
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
Point being EmDrives makes Interstellar missions possible.
At 1g solid burn, is about 5.2 Earth years to Alpha Centauri for a flyby or 6 Earth years with a mid way flip & burn to go into orbit.
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/spacetravel.php
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
Pardon????
Roger's data is based on the device Cannae supplied to and was tested by EW, which had a dielectric. Remember?
Do you have information from Cannae that their devices don't use dielectrics?
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
Pardon????
Roger's data is based on the Cannae device tested by EW, which had a dielectric. Remember?
No, the Cannae device tested at NASA EW was not superconducting. It had a Q orders of magnitude smaller than 10 million. The outlier we are discussing has a Q of 10 million. It looks like the superconducting Cannae (Fetta) Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta reported at the AIAA conference and in one of Fetta's patents.
Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million !
-
Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million !
So you have information that Cannae doesn't use dielectrics? Dielectric resonators can have very high Qs. My information says they do.
-
Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million !
So you have information that Cannae doesn't use dielectrics? Dielectric resonators can have very high Qs. My information says they do.
Cannae uses a dielectric for their copper devices. Cannae does not use a dielectric for their superconducting device, as a dielectric would not allow a Q of 10 million:
1) Please review your notes and review Cannae's website
2) Your note that the outlier is due to a lossy dielectric is completely contradicted by the fact that the largest outlier has the largest Q.
3) Large Q means low losses ! Q is the inverse of damping !
4) The largest outlier in Shaywer's plot has the lowest losses in the plot!
This is the complete opposite of your statement that the outlier is due to lossy dielectric.
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
RotoSequence:
"Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself."
I advise that you go back to the Eagleworks Lab's 2014 AIAA/JPC paper and look at the Cannae tests performed in the EW lab in August of 2013 and January of 2014 with the take-away that ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
In the case of the Cannae pillbox thruster the EW lab found that it required a Teflon cylinder on one side of the pillbox resonant cavity to create the necessary asymmetry that created the recorded unidirectional force of up to 60 micro-Newton (uN) with ~25W of RF input power.
In the EM-drive the required force rectification symmetry break is supplied by the frustum's Z-axis asymmetrical shape and/or the addition of low-dielectric constant and low loss polyethylene or Teflon discs at one or the other ends of the frustum.
IMO no-matter what theory of operation you care to ascribe to, as long as fast time varying (~500 MHz or higher) E&M field strengths measured in the hundreds of kV/m or higher are combined with asymmetries in the resonant cavity system, this system will generated sensible thrust signatures. Their thrust magnitudes will then be dependent on the chosen excited resonant mode times the peak E-fields obtained times the asymmetry in the system. And yes, it's a parametrically amplified bootstrapping system that has to get all its subsystems coordinated in a cooperative manner before large thrusts can be obtained.
Best, P.M.
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach.
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach.
The papers I have seen regarding this usually are talking about higher speeds and 0.67 is about the limit. I really doubt we have to worry about quantum vacuum since it's not even proven real. I doubt a probe would be destroyed until much faster than 0.67c. Sure there might be a little damage.
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
Thanks, Spupeng7. Unruh’s article was offered for the quote alone. Not sure about the rest of the article.. You may find the answer (?) to your second question in the discussion below..
Continued.. (Essay on time a prerequisite)
Of course, option (2) is more seductive... (creating the time differential field) But, creating a lower rate of time and where you want it is not so easy. Naturally, any mass or energy replaces by logical substitution the time process (of the same nature) and produces this time deficit we call gravity. This is, in spirit, all GR without the map.
We forget placing a large mass in front of the craft... :). We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.
IMO, the em waves are made of four conjugate monopoles pointing: lower down, lower up, upper up and upper down. Each pair of monopoles, uppers or lowers, are fluctuations above or below the local rate of time. Because each pair contains an up and down component they each a) dissipate back to nothing and b) they always move as they appear and disappear because the up-down ( whether upper or lower) is a causal structure. Of course, you can’t find an up or down whatever alone as the structure doesn’t lead back to nil; think of the quarks.. Both opposite pairs were free fluctuations before they got couple together to form an em wave. You could equally consider each pair as a single structure with curl... since they can never be found alone. In pair creation the em wave gets splited back into its original fluctuations .. with a twist! They are not translating but rather rotating on themselve; positive and negative electrons. As a rule, I see here conservation of structure...
The idea then is to separate and collect these fluctuations and preserve them under a field in order to build up a lasting lump of both above and below fluctuations and form the causal structure of motion/inertia. The problem is to collect these monopole fluctuations while preserving their monopolar structure i.e. without creating the bipolar closed loop H.
The only place where I thought I could “see” such monopolar structure was in a type of Podkletnov disk.. .... where surface currents would produce half a curl .. but (?) the superconductor mirror image of the field is just the opposite curl.. (remember the floating magnet..) canceling any net effect..
In other words, I "think" I know what we have to start with and what we need to achieve as end result ... but not really how to go about to get one from to the other. You obviously have achieved the causal structure to some extent... I am just trying to figure how we are actually doing it so that we can do it better while cutting down on the empirical exploration time..
Hope this had at least some entertainment value ... :)
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach.
The papers I have seen regarding this usually are talking about higher speeds and 0.67 is about the limit. I really doubt we have to worry about quantum vacuum since it's not even proven real. I doubt a probe would be destroyed until much faster than 0.67c. Sure there might be a little damage.
I believe this paper "THE INTERACTION OF RELATIVISTIC SPACECRAFTS WITH THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM" https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284v1 . Which Dr. Rodal was kind enough to locate for me in response to an earlier discussion, (I already had a copy but could not locate it).., at least begins to address the issue of the effect of relativistic velocities on spacecraft traveling through an interstellar medium.
I did not re-read it but as I recall it does not consider the QV, only velocities on the order of 0.2c and collisions with interstellar dust and atoms.
Even setting this aside the speed of light is only considered constant for an inertial observer. For an accelerating spaceship the closing speed of the real background EM radiation and the spaceship would be c + (whatever fraction of c the spaceship has accelerating to). A controversial interpretation for sure but intended to emphasize the fact that sensationalized discussions of even relativistic velocities, are not accounting for the implications of, even the effects of the classical impacts with interstellar dust/atoms, let alone many of the untested predictions, of special relativity, involving the energies required to accelerate any mass to realativistic velocities or any potential issue that may arise as a function of predictions within the context of quantum mechanics.
Most of the time my recent posts, including those involving any alternate theory of operation have not been intended to present any absolute position on the realities of either mechanism or, in the case at hand, the implications of interstellar travel. They have been an attempt to broaden then discussion base and at times, introduce some caution, where it seems that purely theoretical projections are being presented and discussed as accurate descriptions of nature, when the conditions being described are far beyond any existing direct experience.
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have the position sensor at the big end side and the capacitor force sensor on the small end side as shown in Fig 2. I will read the paper again to see if that is stated.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
Zen-in:
"They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect."
Once again and IMO, a large part of my calibration work was not given sufficient coverage in this report after Dr. White and the AIAA reviewers got through with it. These calibration efforts on my part addressed and quantified the magnitude of the torque pendulum's center of gravity (cg) shifts due to the temp rise and fall driven thermal expansions of the copper frustum and the counter thermal expansion of RF amplifier's aluminum heat-sink and aluminum case. (The copper frustum was mounted on one side of an 0.090" thick 6061 aluminum spine plate while the RF amplifier and its heat-sink were mounted on the opposite side of this aluminum spine plate. A few slides with some of this thermal cg shift data is appended below and I'll post more as need, but in short the graphic signatures you are seeing in this EW in-vacuum report consist of an impulsive signal riding on top of the thermally driven TP cg shifting signal as defined in the force diagrams.
Best, P.M.
-
Ah Ha!
I read something very interesting in EW's latest paper @ http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120
pg. 3:
"The change in phase angle over frequency [dispersion!] was also calculated, and a new parameter dubbed the phase angle quality factor was developed to help quantify the characteristics of a given resonance condition. The phase angle quality factor was the change in phase angle over a given frequency range, and it was determined using the phase plot fromVNA and only considering the region of the steepest phase angle change centered on the resonance. Figure 4 depicts ...The bottom-left pane is the variation in phase angle for the system, and the bottom-right pane is the group delay.
The tuning study determined that, for this particular tapered test article, optimal thrust was present if the system had a quality factorat least several thousand and the maximum phase angle quality factor ["phase angle quality factor" - dispersion!] that could be achieved."
Hmmmm, now, where have we heard and seen anything like this before? Oh! Now I remember:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1509852#msg1509852
from: 1303.0733 pg 20
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/home/pete/Documents/photofridge.jpg)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/home/pete/Documents/photofridge2.jpg)
Traveller's notes about Roger's observation of a narrower tunning max. thrust range than resonance BW. Because force depends on the gradient, as well as amplitude of the phase slope. At peak resonance, there is no slope, no gradient. As is evident from the Optomechanics paper.
Now, if tests are done on a rotary fixture that can permit the frustrum to accelerate, I predict enhanced force/power figure of merit consequent from negative inertial resistance! Anisotropic frequency dissipation enables a net group-velocity towards the base, producing minor thrust in a static test frame, and enhanced thrust in an accelerating frustrum as doppler shifted sidebands spread, along with enhanced guide wavelength spread (on a steep dispersive phase-slope) enhancing lower sideband dissipation.
As discussed by Bradshaw in: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467v1
"Doppler shifts may become large in a dispersive medium as the velocity of the Doppler shifting surface approaches the group velocity." in my renouned, hastilly blurted post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1471229#msg1471229
If you understand the roles of anisotropic dispersion and dissipation of doppler shifted sidebands in an accelerated frame, it all makes sense using, as Shawyer's said, conventional SR and Maxwell's EM. No new physics needed.
See? I told you. But nyooooooooooooo. Nobody listened.
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have the position sensor at the big end side and the capacitor force sensor on the small end side as shown in Fig 2. I will read the paper again to see if that is stated.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
Zen-in:
"They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect."
Once again and IMO, a large part of my calibration work was not given sufficient coverage in this report after Dr. White and the AIAA reviewers got through with it. These calibration efforts on my part addressed and quantified the magnitude of the torque pendulum's center of gravity (cg) shifts due to the temp rise and fall driven thermal expansions of the copper frustum and the counter thermal expansion of RF amplifier's aluminum heat-sink and aluminum case. (The copper frustum was mounted on one side of an 0.090" thick 6061 aluminum spine plate while the RF amplifier and its heat-sink were mounted on the opposite side of this aluminum spine plate. A few slides with some of this thermal cg shift data is appended below and I'll post more as need, but in short the graphic signatures you are seeing in this EW in-vacuum report consist of an impulsive signal riding on top of the thermally driven TP cg shifting signal as defined in the force diagrams.
Best, P.M.
The diagram looks like based on measurement data and not calculated thermal expansion of the materials, right?(otherwise the µm displacement should be equal in bothe directions).
Interesting piece of the puzzle!
Thanks.
-
I don't understand the force measurement procedure. What justification is there that the break in slope represents the peak thrust? Why does it take so long, ~20 s to reach, when for calibration pulses the maximum displacement is reached in less than five seconds? And when the RF power is turned off it looks even stranger. Look at Fig. 7, where the 29 uN calibration pulse at ~160 s is very obvious and starts steeply. However, the claimed disappearance of 106 uN EM Drive thrust looks much smoother.
-
X_Ray:
"The diagram looks like measurement data and not calculated thermal expansion of the materials, right? (Otherwise the µm displacement should equal in both directions).
Interesting piece of the puzzle! Thanks."
Correct, my EW Torque Pendulum thermal expansion magnitude experiments and calculations are documented in a series slides with the first few attached to this post.
Best, Paul M.
-
Flux Capacitor - your reference gives 4T fuel at 5% enrichment, my sum gave 0.2T at 100% enrichment, which is good enough reconciled for me. I've no idea which you would build in practice, but either way it seems feasible. 100 year journeys are hard for other reasons, anyway.
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
Can we expect any published results in 2017 do you think?
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
Can we expect any published results in 2017 do you think?
Good question which I don't have enough info to answer confidently. This may depend on Paul's possible collaboration with others and how they wish to proceed. I know Paul is anxious to get additional ground based testing complete then into LEO. Perhaps Tajmar might fulfill this aspect while Paul focuses on the mission. This is my best guess
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
Can we expect any published results in 2017 do you think?
Good question which I don't have enough info to answer confidently. This may depend on Paul's possible collaboration with others and how they wish to proceed. I know Paul is anxious to get additional ground based testing complete then into LEO. Perhaps Tajmar might fulfill this aspect while Paul focuses on the mission. This is my best guess
Is Paul trying to get something like a cubesat okayed then?
-
X_Ray:
"The diagram looks like measurement data and not calculated thermal expansion of the materials, right? (Otherwise the µm displacement should equal in both directions).
Interesting piece of the puzzle! Thanks."
Correct, my EW Torque Pendulum thermal expansion magnitude experiments and calculations are documented in a series slides with the first few attached to this post.
Best, Paul M.
Welcome back "stranger".
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
Can we expect any published results in 2017 do you think?
Good question which I don't have enough info to answer confidently. This may depend on Paul's possible collaboration with others and how they wish to proceed. I know Paul is anxious to get additional ground based testing complete then into LEO. Perhaps Tajmar might fulfill this aspect while Paul focuses on the mission. This is my best guess
Is Paul trying to get something like a cubesat okayed then?
Yes, his webpage is here: https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
-
Is there any new info about the vacuum test of Paul Kocyla at dresden university??
Yes, mechanical rework of assembly to offset cooling difficulties. Think Paul mentioned switching to a higher output device that will run cooler at or near original power levels.
Can we expect any published results in 2017 do you think?
Good question which I don't have enough info to answer confidently. This may depend on Paul's possible collaboration with others and how they wish to proceed. I know Paul is anxious to get additional ground based testing complete then into LEO. Perhaps Tajmar might fulfill this aspect while Paul focuses on the mission. This is my best guess
Is Paul trying to get something like a cubesat okayed then?
Yes, his webpage is here: https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
Thanks for that link.
-
In order for a thermal shifted CG to cause a torque artifact, an out of level condition of the torsion pendulum's axis must be present at that particular time. A CG shift while perfectly level will not cause an anomalous torque. An out of level condition without a CG shift will not cause a torque.
Furthermore, both the moment magnitude of the thermo CG shift, and its vector relative to the "high point" of the out of level will define how the system reacts. For example, it the CG shifts directly toward the low point of the out of level, little torque will be generated. If the CG shifts in a vector 90 degrees from that low point, the maximum error effect will be seen.
Characterizing the system the way Paul March did is a reasonable step. However, it is important to understand that there were no changes in the experiment configuration, which shifted the CG, from that calibration to the testing regimen. Some lingering questions for example. Was the bar of aluminum that the cal weight was slid down present during the thrust test as well as the thermo cal? If not then the addition of this component can shift the high point to a new spot muddying the thermo calibration run. Was the thermo cal done with the torsion pendulum slid out of the chamber? How level was it outside the chamber? How level inside the chamber? How repeatable was the level. Did all locations share the same high point or did it shift to a new spot as it was slid into place?
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
-
Just a coincidence...60 year old Disney Sunday evening TV show mentions emdrive by name @ 16:31.
Also talks about going to Mars, quite relevant to today's discussions...60 years...sad we never made it in that time. People were so hopeful about space at one time. Enjoy a minor diversion this Sunday evening.
https://youtu.be/88pk2uch00o
-
Quick question:
On page 1 of Rodger Sawyer's latest patent, it talks about getting superconducting thrust of 30N per 1KW of power. However his thrust table on page 7 shows an average superconducting thrust of 0.326N per 1KW. Am I comparing correctly?
-
So, very interesting discussion, but after the publication of the paper, I would be glad if someone would make a short, non-tecnical post on what the new paper shows ns does not, and what are the limitations of this research set... I think the community would greatly benefit from stating clearly the state of the art! :)
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
... and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
This last does not sound encouraging. Is there a real risk that NASA/JSC is going to pull the plug on EW?
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
... and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
This last does not sound encouraging. Is there a real risk that NASA/JSC is going to pull the plug on EW?
it could be institutional paranoia about protecting their rep as a serious professional scientific organization. In that case you could land a starship powered by an EM drive in the NASA HQ parking lot, crush the director's car under one of it's landing legs, jump out and moon the bystanders and reporters and still face people skeptical that it even possibly happened "since it can't work and has to be an experimental error don'cha know?".
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
... and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
This last does not sound encouraging. Is there a real risk that NASA/JSC is going to pull the plug on EW?
it could be institutional paranoia about protecting their rep as a a serious scientific orthodox organization. In that case you could land a starship powered by an EM drive in the NASA HQ parking lot, Crushing the director's car under one of it's landing legs, jump out and moon the bystanders and reporters and still face people skeptical that it even possibly happened.
It was more likely an over reaction and misread of the context as a whole on my part...
I should have given more emphasis to the first part of that same sentence,
... Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away,...
Just mentioning the peer review process suggests that NASA/JPL is more likely just continuing the ban on leaks prior to peer reviewed publication... And adding a time frame is in itself encouraging that a next paper is, or was at least on the agenda... Never know about funding issues in new administrations.
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
Just like the small OD end-cap, the large OD end-cap of the EW copper frustum is made from single sided FR4 1-oz copper PCB. What you are seeing in the EW pictures of the ICFTA is the 0.090" thick aluminum spine plate mounted over this FR4 PCB, which was used to mount the PLL control box and RF amplifier and heat-sink to the frustum assembly.
Best, Paul M.
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Thank you for the additional information. I think you and the others at JSC have done very careful work. Ideas like this need to be researched carefully and thoroughly as you have done. You have always been honest and willing to share your experimental results as much as you are permitted. Like you I was inspired by Sputnik and the early space program. I also worked at a NASA research center for several years and really liked being a very small part of something big. I wish you all the best with your retirement.
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
Just like the small OD end-cap, the large OD end-cap of the EW copper frustum is made from single sided FR4 1-oz copper PCB. What you are seeing in the EW pictures of the ICFTA is the 0.090" thick aluminum spine plate mounted over this FR4 PCB, which was used to mount the PLL control box and RF amplifier and heat-sink to the frustum assembly.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you, Star Drive! My question is answered.
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
Thanks, Spupeng7. Unruh’s article was offered for the quote alone. Not sure about the rest of the article.. You may find the answer (?) to your second question in the discussion below..
Continued.. (Essay on time a prerequisite)
Of course, option (2) is more seductive... (creating the time differential field) But, creating a lower rate of time and where you want it is not so easy. Naturally, any mass or energy replaces by logical substitution the time process (of the same nature) and produces this time deficit we call gravity. This is, in spirit, all GR without the map.
We forget placing a large mass in front of the craft... :). We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.
IMO, the em waves are made of four conjugate monopoles pointing: lower down, lower up, upper up and upper down. Each pair of monopoles, uppers or lowers, are fluctuations above or below the local rate of time. Because each pair contains an up and down component they each a) dissipate back to nothing and b) they always move as they appear and disappear because the up-down ( whether upper or lower) is a causal structure. Of course, you can’t find an up or down whatever alone as the structure doesn’t lead back to nil; think of the quarks.. Both opposite pairs were free fluctuations before they got couple together to form an em wave. You could equally consider each pair as a single structure with curl... since they can never be found alone. In pair creation the em wave gets splited back into its original fluctuations .. with a twist! They are not translating but rather rotating on themselve; positive and negative electrons. As a rule, I see here conservation of structure...
The idea then is to separate and collect these fluctuations and preserve them under a field in order to build up a lasting lump of both above and below fluctuations and form the causal structure of motion/inertia. The problem is to collect these monopole fluctuations while preserving their monopolar structure i.e. without creating the bipolar closed loop H.
The only place where I thought I could “see” such monopolar structure was in a type of Podkletnov disk.. .... where surface currents would produce half a curl .. but (?) the superconductor mirror image of the field is just the opposite curl.. (remember the floating magnet..) canceling any net effect..
In other words, I "think" I know what we have to start with and what we need to achieve as end result ... but not really how to go about to get one from to the other. You obviously have achieved the causal structure to some extent... I am just trying to figure how we are actually doing it so that we can do it better while cutting down on the empirical exploration time..
Hope this had at least some entertainment value ... :)
M,
yes I am entertained, I live for this even if I have so little grasp of it. If the emission and absorption of a photon occur at either end of an otherwise non-existent traverse, then the binary state of quantum mechanics indicates coincidence in complex time. What I am suggesting is that we may be able to further our emdrive design skill set, by assuming that the universe is better described by a combination of complex time and direction.
This is little different to what Special Relativity describes, the difference being that we perceive distance when in reality distance is separation in the real component of complex time, that which we measure with the clock. We could then account for all non-corpuscular interactions, such as gravity and inertia, by the interaction of all charges in complex time and direction alone. The separation between absorption and emission during reflection is then the mechanism of action of the emdrive, and that depends upon the extent of the waveform within the conducting surfaces inside the frustum.
Just throwing this out there in hope that someone can shoot it down and I can get some sleep :-)
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
-
Dear Mr. March,
First of all, I want to congratulate you with your outstanding work.
But, please forgive us, for curious people like us, it is never enough. '-)
What I miss most in the article, is a systematic treatment of measurements with dielectric inserts (various kinds) compared to measurements without these dielectrics. Was this omitted in the final paper?
Thanks and all the best,
Peter Lauwer
-
Just on the topic of power supply for an EM-Drive starship - or the JPL fission powered NEP ion-drive - the fuel-cycle choice will need to be either highly enriched uranium, such as the USN use in their submarines, or a fast cycle which burns natural uranium or thorium. Both have very high burn-up fractions compared to LWR Once-Through cycles used in most commercial reactors.
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
-
Electrons proven to have significant role in heat transfer when coupled with molecular vibration. Interesting implications for side walls and E field extrema when not in vacuum. Reaffirms higher efficiency (less orbital changes therefore less noise) in supercooled/vacuum state.
Electron+Positron=2 Photon could imply:
electric heat transfer=Thermal radiation
therefore electron=super massive photon?
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-uncover-molecules.html
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
To keep neutrality on the subject you could also talk about Pr. Woodward's point of view which, although stating something unusual is going on with these experiments (please note he changed his mind since he dismissed the EmDrive before), restrains White's theory. To begin with:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
Sonny White posits the quantum vacuum is mutable, and more specifically that virtual fermions from quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) of the Zero-Point Field (ZPF) can be considered as a virtual plasma that can be pushed on with Lorentz forces, like a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) drive. That "Q-thruster" would accelerate forward as a reaction to the virtual wake.
Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn have published a lead article in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society where they demonstrate why the EM quantum vacuum cannot be used to explain thrusts in any isolated, closed electromagnetic system:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum" (http://www.bis-space.com/eshop/products-page-2/magazines/jbis/jbis-2016/jbis-vol-69-no-05-may-2016/), JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
-
Have they updated that Motherboard article since the paper was officially published by the AIAA?
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php (http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php)
And according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqth
However the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
-
...better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives...
1) Thanks for all the posts here, they are gold
2) To your point of perfecting (or even improving) the results from these things, I'm wondering if you feel we (and by we I mean you and the other people that know what they are doing) have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs. This is made even more interesting by the fact that you made it sound like there are probably a broad variety of different form factors that could generate a similar result as long as they met a few key conditions. Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be? Or is the overall shape not as important at some point, as (possibly) suggested by your quote below?
ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
-
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, congratulations for you work :)
Before you left Eagleworks, was a more advanced cavity (giving more specific thrust) being considered for future tests? I don't think about a superconducting unit, but a TE012 or TE013 copper or aluminum silver-plated frustum with spherical end reflectors (same kind as Shawyer's Flight Thruster) instead of a TM212 cavity with flat end plates.
-
Have they updated that Motherboard article since the paper was officially published by the AIAA?
No, but they posted another article:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nasas-peer-reviewed-paper-on-the-emdrive-is-now-online
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
To keep neutrality on the subject you could also talk about Pr. Woodward's point of view which, although stating something unusual is going on with these experiments (please note he changed his mind since he dismissed the EmDrive before), restrains White's theory...
Thanks, I will write also about Woodward's models, but now I am trying to write a relatively simple popular summary of the theoretical ideas hinted at by White & co. in the last EW paper and previous theoretical papers.
-
...better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives...
1) Thanks for all the posts here, they are gold
2) To your point of perfecting (or even improving) the results from these things, I'm wondering if you feel we (and by we I mean you and the other people that know what they are doing) have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs. This is made even more interesting by the fact that you made it sound like there are probably a broad variety of different form factors that could generate a similar result as long as they met a few key conditions. Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be? Or is the overall shape not as important at some point, as (possibly) suggested by your quote below?
ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
Johnathon:
"...have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs."
Yes we do and the obvious ones are adding frustum spherical endcaps optimized for maximum E&M production using the TE013 resonant mode. We also need to optimize the active tuning of these resonant cavities to maximize not only the E&M fields in them per input RF Watts, but also the dynamic thrust production from same.
"Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be?"
I'm not that smart to know what the optimal resonant cavity shape will end up being since no matter how appealing their E&M field production may look like via the COMSOL or FEKO E&M analysis tools, what counts is what their thrust production end up being for a given input power. And that information only comes about by building and testing them, at least until we have an engineering theory of operation that appears to work well enough to accurately (+/-10%) model this class of microwave thruster's thrust production.
Best, Paul M.
-
Have they updated that Motherboard article since the paper was officially published by the AIAA?
No, but they posted another article:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nasas-peer-reviewed-paper-on-the-emdrive-is-now-online
Thank you for that link.
-
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, congratulations for you work :)
Before you left Eagleworks, was a more advanced cavity (giving more specific thrust) being considered for future tests? I don't think about a superconducting unit, but a TE012 or TE013 copper or aluminum silver-plated frustum with spherical end reflectors (same kind as Shawyer's Flight Thruster) instead of a TM212 cavity with flat end plates.
Flux_Capacitor:
The only talk of a new thruster before I left the EW Lab was to make a thruster small enough to work in a 3U or larger CubeSat like Cannae is supposedly doing. Past that I have no clue what Dr. White wants to or will be allowed to build in this venue.
Best, Paul M.
-
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Paul, these are beautiful and inspiring words. I was born a few days before Sputnik, but watching Neil Armstrong walking on the moon (and seeing 2001 one year before that) sent my spirit to the stars. I was with ESA and other space research centers for a couple of decades, then moved on to other things. But my spirit is still among the stars and I hope our children and mind children will go there and beyond. I understand that you retired in September. Now that you don't have to spend time on boring paperwork and office politiks, your work to pave the way to the stars can go faster! Keep inspiring us, and we will follow you.
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php (http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php)
And according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqth
However the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
I would think they are assuming the feedback system will regulate the frequency and power the circulator is operating in. I think you're correct to assume nothing is perfect. There should be a spec for load isolation (20 dB or something like that). In our context, with Q's 1000 and up, with drastic load, start transients and dynamics, more isolation could be required. Perhaps two (circulators) could be better than one? Maybe better control system/regulation.
My 2 cents, FWIW. I set up 100W cell sites with isolators & duplexers, kilowatt UHF systems, various small-signal processing devices and instruments.
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
-
It seems to me that the outline of pilot-wave theories that begins the theory part of the EW paper is - though intriguing and well written - only loosely related to the main considerations about the quantum vacuum as a virtual plasma that can support oscillations and transfer momentum (also explored in the two previous theoretical papers by White & co). So I am wondering why they start with pilot-wave theories. Am I missing something important?
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
In light of events this year I could say something but will resist the temptation.
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Remember this from Roger?
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010. Boeing confirmed to SPR that the Flight Thruster met contract specs.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Sort of difficult to accept the NASA data that the EmDrive works and not accept the earlier data from Roger as being valid.
-
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
In light of events this year I could say something but will resist the temptation.
Just had the inspiration for a rant titled "Donald Trump and the Awesome EmDrive" ;-) ;-)
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power. Some folks here just can't accept that claiming energy conservation is fundamentally violated. Thanks.
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
It could be the other way around, that you probably know something he doesn't.
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Oh no, thank you sir. With our current technologies my odds of going to space before I died of old age are so low that I doubt even Dr. Rodal could have calculated it. Now I have at least a 1% chance, which is an order of magnitude greater than I had before.
-
Remember this from Roger?
[…] This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Must be kidding: UK FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000) is effective since 2000. Whereas US FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)) is effective since 1967! The US version is like the mother of the other Freedom of Information Acts.
The name of end-user is indeed "The Boeing Company" on the contract you provided. But as you said "End User Undertaking" more specifically indicates the end user is the "armed forces" and purpose is use on a test satellite.
So it appears the contract does not involve a conventional branch of the Boeing Company (which is a vague term since Boeing is a vast multinational corporation) but rather a defense business unit of Boeing tied to the US Air Force. This may be Boeing Phantom Works.
Since the US Armed Forces are part of the US Department of Defense, any US citizen could ask their federal government for the release of the SPR-Boeing-Air Force records under a formal FOIA request. Boeing should not oppose such a demand, as a representative officially stated about the EmDrive that "the company is no longer pursuing this avenue".
https://www.foia.gov
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Remember this from Roger?
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010. Boeing confirmed to SPR that the Flight Thruster met contract specs.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Sort of difficult to accept the NASA data that the EmDrive works and not accept the earlier data from Roger as being valid.
The way I have read the discussion/debate the issue is not so much a question of data from NASA or Shawyer that the EmDrive works (though much of Shawyer's "data" appears more like claims than experimental results).., it is more about the theoretical basis promoted describing how and/or why it works! And to some extent the validity of the certainty of the upscaling projections that have as yet to be publicly confirmed.
Challenging a theoretical basis is not the same as challenging practical results. Though again, for what ever the reasons might have been, much of Shawyer's EmDrive past performance, has been presented more like claims, even hearsay, than as explicit detail of design and experimental data. NDAs may have been valid reasons for the way Shawyer has released detail, where he has, but they don't change the perception.
-
Remember this from Roger?
[…] This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Must be kidding: UK FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000) is effective since 2000. Whereas US FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)) is effective since 1967! The US version is like the mother of the other Freedom of Information Acts.
The name of end-user is indeed "The Boeing Company" on the contract you provided. But as you said "End User Undertaking" more specifically indicates the end user is the "armed forces" and purpose is use on a test satellite.
So it appears the contract does not involve a conventional branch of the Boeing Company (which is a vague term since Boeing is a vast multinational corporation) but rather a defense business unit of Boeing tied to the US Air Force. This may be Boeing Phantom Works.
Since the US Armed Forces are part of the US Department of Defense, any US citizen could ask their federal government for the release of the SPR-Boeing-Air Force records under a formal FOIA request. Boeing should not oppose such a demand, as a representative officially stated about the EmDrive that "the company is no longer pursuing this avenue".
https://www.foia.gov
What happens if they did oppose though, that still might not mean anything.
-
In regards to the recent paper:
The thrust rises slowly and peaks (break in slope) about 20 s after the RF power is initiated. Why is this not instantaneous?
The question should be, why is it 5 times longer than 4 seconds which is the pendulum's response time observed on the calibration pulse.
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
-
Remember this from Roger?
[…] This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Must be kidding: UK FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000) is effective since 2000. Whereas US FOIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)) is effective since 1967! The US version is like the mother of the other Freedom of Information Acts.
The name of end-user is indeed "The Boeing Company" on the contract you provided. But as you said "End User Undertaking" more specifically indicates the end user is the "armed forces" and purpose is use on a test satellite.
So it appears the contract does not involve a conventional branch of the Boeing Company (which is a vague term since Boeing is a vast multinational corporation) but rather a defense business unit of Boeing tied to the US Air Force. This may be Boeing Phantom Works.
Since the US Armed Forces are part of the US Department of Defense, any US citizen could ask their federal government for the release of the SPR-Boeing-Air Force records under a formal FOIA request. Boeing should not oppose such a demand, as a representative officially stated about the EmDrive that "the company is no longer pursuing this avenue".
https://www.foia.gov
What happens if they did oppose though, that still might not mean anything.
It is my understanding they can't legally oppose a specific FOIA request, unless invoking National Security (which would indicate one had touched on a sore point!) but they could at least strike out sensitive information in the released version of the documents. That has always been the case especially with UFO files declassified by the CIA and other No Such Agencies. See for example the original redacted version of the infamous "Yeates affidavit" after the related FOIA request, attached.
-
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
If there only were some kind of, I don't know, calibration pulse.
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power. Some folks here just can't accept that claiming energy conservation is fundamentally violated. Thanks.
Since I have understood that the degradable Quantum Vacuum Theory make the Emdrive clearly non isolated, I would reformulate the question for Paul March.
How, in the Degradable Quantum Vacuum theory, does work CoE ? Does the Quantum Vacuum loose energy as a balance for the Kinetic energy gained by the ship ? Does the QV stay degraded until something else give it again energy, as for an empty oilfield ?
Does the notion of movement applies to the Degradable QV ?
Bob012345, you simplify the claims of the people who disagree with you. The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else. You can not remove that if, that was already repeated many times, from the claim.
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power. Some folks here just can't accept that claiming energy conservation is fundamentally violated. Thanks.
Bob...:
"Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power."
Hard to say at this time without an agreed upon physical model for the Propellantless Propulsion (P-P) effect. IMO if these P-P field like drives are utilizing the ambient gravitational field of the cosmos to generate their propulsion effects, as both Woodward's, White's or Brandenburg's P-P models propose, then energy can be extracted from this field during their local constant input power operations, thus keeping their thrust output constant as the ship's kinetic energy increases. This type of interaction should be similar to space probes using gravity assist interactions going around another planet to get an extra kinetic energy boost to their next destination by infinitesimally slowing the planet's or moon's orbital velocity they are passing. In the cosmological gravitational field case, the required slowing would IMO most likely end up being a reduction in the cosmological microwave background temperature. However if the P-P interactions are strictly local in nature as posited by Shawyer and Desiato, i.e., that the P-P thruster strictly rely on the energy input from their local power supply on board the vehicle, then there has to be a performance plateau where the effective thrust falls off with increasing velocity from their initial start point dependent on the P-P thruster's N/kWe performance.
Personally I hope that one for more of the cosmological gravitational field P-P conjectures are at their cores correct for that alleviates the necessity of dragging along multi-gigawatt nuclear power plants for our interstellar voyages. So at this stage of the game, more test data is needed to first determine the scaleability of the P-P force output for the various P-P thruster types, and then determine whether this thrust scaling in linear or non-linear with input power. And this power to thrust scaling study will have to be performed over at least four orders of input power magnitude, (say 0.1kW to 100kW), to encapsulate possible non-linearties in the thruster's input power response that are pointed to by some of the cosmological gravitational field based P-P models due to their reliance on neutral-plasma hydrodynamic and or magneto-hydrodynamic rule sets.
Best, Paul M.
-
I wonder if some strategy for a Mars mission using an orbit that increases time in the inner solar system, to maximize efficiency of solar panels, followed by some other braking strategy might not be more realistic. If nothing else it would seem possible to build up velocity during a stage of the mission relativeIy closed to the sun, then to begin deceleration, at a lower power, at some point before the halfway point between the Earth and Mars. This is assuming that solar panels will have a better power/kg ratio than a nuclear reactor once shielding and a heat sink are taken into account.
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power. Some folks here just can't accept that claiming energy conservation is fundamentally violated. Thanks.
Since I have understood that the degradable Quantum Vacuum Theory make the Emdrive clearly non isolated, I would reformulate the question for Paul March.
How, in the Degradable Quantum Vacuum theory, does work CoE ? Does the Quantum Vacuum loose energy as a balance for the Kinetic energy gained by the ship ? Does the QV stay degraded until something else give it again energy, as for an empty oilfield ?
Does the notion of movement applies to the Degradable QV ?
Bob012345, you simplify the claims of the people who disagree with you. The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else. You can not remove that if, that was already repeated many times, from the claim.
Gilbert-drive:
1. "How, in the Degradable Quantum Vacuum theory, does work CoE?"
Per Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum (QV) Conjecture work is performed when the QV plasma is accelerated by the NET unidirectional E&M ExB Poynting Vector power flows setup in the frustum over a full 360 degree RF cycle.
2. "Does the Quantum Vacuum loose energy as a balance for the Kinetic energy gained by the ship?"
The energy required to accelerate the QV plasma comes from two sources. One is the local power supply driving the RF source AND the second is the energy extracted from any thermodynamic differential pressure gradient created by the frustum in the cosmological gravitational field that per the QV conjecture is the QV.
3. "Does the QV stay degraded until something else give it again energy, as for an empty oilfield?"
No. In the QV conjecture, as soon as the accelerated QV passes out of the pressurized state created in the frustum thruster's time varying E&M fields, it reverts via a shock wave back down to near its original density that further degrades back to the background cosmological gravitational field density of ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 over time, if out of the solar system. This is why the wake is weakly interacting, see attached QV graphic. You could also think about a water wake created by a ship's propeller that has an initial velocity that dissipates back to the background over distance.
4. "Does the notion of movement applies to the Degradable QV?"
Yes it does.
Best, Paul M.
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Budgets. Everything must compete for funding.
-
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
If there only were some kind of, I don't know, calibration pulse.
In all seriousness... this is pretty bad. I use the calibration pulse to determine the time constant of the pendulum as 4 seconds, and get no thrust in their latest graphs. What ever was responding to power rapidly is now gone.
Yes, there's something odd at 17..20 s , but then, there's great many components being heated non-uniformly. Some may even be undergoing quasi-phase changes (plastics have a glass transition temperature). Some may be warping until they mechanically come in contact with another component.
-
Bob012345, you simplify the claims of the people who disagree with you. The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else. You can not remove that if, that was already repeated many times, from the claim.
I think this is still not accurate. Kinetic energy is a special type of energy which is associated with motion and is dependent on the reference frame. When people talk about conversion of other (frame-independent) types of energy into kinetic energy, special care must be taken to make sure this conversion satisfies CoE in every inertial frame. If an object gains kinetic energy without pushing against something, it violates CoE (since kinetic energy gain will be frame dependent, while the expended potential energy is not). If it is pushing against something (but not carrying this "something" with it, like a conventional rocket), it will have to spend more and more energy per unit of time as its velocity relative to that "something" increases, since the potential energy will be spent for accelerating both objects in the opposite directions, which requires an increasing amount of energy due to the v^2 term (m(v + dv)^2/2 - mv^2/2 = mdv^2 / 2 + mdv, which is obviously greater than mdv^2/2).
-
In all seriousness... this is pretty bad. I use the calibration pulse to determine the time constant of the pendulum as 4 seconds, and get no thrust in their latest graphs. What ever was responding to power rapidly is now gone.
Yes, there's something odd at 17..20 s , but then, there's great many components being heated non-uniformly. Some may even be undergoing quasi-phase changes (plastics have a glass transition temperature). Some may be warping until they mechanically come in contact with another component.
I agree. I see nothing in the paper that proves that there is any thrust. On the other hand, the claimed magnitudes of thrust seem to me incompatible with the shown traces of calibration pulses and test runs (unless the thermal effect is _very_ strangely behaving).
-
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
If there only were some kind of, I don't know, calibration pulse.
In all seriousness... this is pretty bad. I use the calibration pulse to determine the time constant of the pendulum as 4 seconds, and get no thrust in their latest graphs. What ever was responding to power rapidly is now gone.
Yes, there's something odd at 17..20 s , but then, there's great many components being heated non-uniformly. Some may even be undergoing quasi-phase changes (plastics have a glass transition temperature). Some may be warping until they mechanically come in contact with another component.
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php (http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php)
And according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqth
However the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
No. Perfect circulators (or isolators) do not exist. What they are claiming, and rightfully so, is that the load presented to the assembly IN ITS ENTIRETY will not affect the output of the source (magnetron). If the VSWR of the load increases, the circulator will dump more power into the dummy load. The source impedance and power output remains relatively constant. The power supplied to the intended point may vary wildly,(from 0% to 100%) as will the the power dumped into the dummy load (from 100% to 0%). The magnetron sees a constant load, hence constant and stable RF power output.
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
-
Just out of curiosity, I started building the Cannae geometry based on their patent dimensions as attached and ran an Eigenmode sweep. Came up with the TM010 at 1.09 GHz which is pretty close to their resonant frequency of 1.047 GHz. I probably didn't make the grooves perfectly as I wasn't sure what the 1.513 dimension was referring to (bottom right corner of the attached picture).
The next mode is the TM110 around 1.7 GHz.
I wonder what balance between E field intensity and power gradient would yield optimal thrust...
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php (http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php)
And according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqth
However the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
No. Perfect circulators (or isolators) do not exist. What they are claiming, and rightfully so, is that the load presented to the assembly IN ITS ENTIRETY will not affect the output of the source (magnetron). If the VSWR of the load increases, the circulator will dump more power into the dummy load. The source impedance and power output remains relatively constant. The power supplied to the intended point may vary wildly,(from 0% to 100%) as will the the power dumped into the dummy load (from 100% to 0%). The magnetron sees a constant load, hence constant and stable RF power output.
Thank you for the reply, and also thanks to mwvp who replied earlier.
That makes sense, but if "the source impedance and power output remains relatively constant", how far can "relatively" vary?
If we're set to 6 kW output and the circulator's input vswr varies from 1.1 to 1.2, then we jumped from 288 W reflected to 546 W which sounds to me like it could cause a significant change in heating and thus output power and frequency.
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
Yeah, not looking good to me either. I don't see any model of how it "blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time", nor any empirical indication. What I see is that the response time for all of the calibration pulses is very consistently ~4 seconds at multiple positions of the pendulum, both before and after heating, including in the null test where the pendulum was still highly displaced by the thermal effects when they applied the second calibration pulse.
-
Hi Zeller, I sketched up the Cannae geometry WITHOUT the "slots" which as I understand were deemed ineffective please see below FL PS Sorry she's not centered. I'll mail what I have to you K
-
1st NASA response I have read:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/11/21/impossible-emdrive-thruster-cleared-first-hurdle/#.WDPpF_l95hE
“NASA is looking forward to the scientific discussions with the broader technical community that will occur based on the publication of the Eagleworks team’s experimental findings, said Jay Bolden, an Engineering PUblic Affairs Officer with NASA’s Johnson Space Center. “This is part of what NASA does in exploring the unknown, and the agency is committed to and focused on the priorities and investments identified by the NASA Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan. Through these investments, NASA will develop the capabilities necessary to send humans farther into space than ever before.”
Maybe NASA should now seriously investigate the 326mN/kW as SPR reported for their Flight Thruster in 2010:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
The Flight Thruster measured data points seems to be those that are in the latest International Patent:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2016162676
326mN/kW was the high watermark in 2009 and that with a room temperature plated Aluminium frustum with spherical end plates.
Should also point out that Roger's 1st Experimental EmDrive developed 18.8mN/kW and in TE012 mode EW measured 21.3mN/kW (55.4uN @ 2.6W).
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html
So it would seem that Roger's 1st EmDrive and that of EW's Cu dielectric EmDrive are not that different other than Roger achieved his 1st result 13 years earlier.
-
The discussions of spaceflight to near stars has focused on the power requirements to effect such a flight. These discussions have focused on nuclear fission reactors. Since this group has been on the bleeding edge of scientific controversy for so long and now seen confirmation of the effect I'd like to suggest that the power source for these flights may well turn out to be the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction otherwise disparagingly known as cold fusion.
That field has faced many of the same scientific prejudices and disdain that the EW drive has faced. It also has a dedicated cadre of DYI experimenters that have had many failures and occasional successes. Also like what has recently happened with the EW research there has been reputable research and successes by government agencies, in particular SPAWARS of the USN.
Just as the EW results have suggested that there is a new potential propulsion system, I suggest that the LENR results suggest that there is a potential new energy source that combined with the EM drive could be more than a little revolutionary.
-
Bob012345, you simplify the claims of the people who disagree with you. The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else. You can not remove that if, that was already repeated many times, from the claim.
I think this is still not accurate. Kinetic energy is a special type of energy which is associated with motion and is dependent on the reference frame. When people talk about conversion of other (frame-independent) types of energy into kinetic energy, special care must be taken to make sure this conversion satisfies CoE in every inertial frame. If an object gains kinetic energy without pushing against something, it violates CoE (since kinetic energy gain will be frame dependent, while the expended potential energy is not). If it is pushing against something (but not carrying this "something" with it, like a conventional rocket), it will have to spend more and more energy per unit of time as its velocity relative to that "something" increases, since the potential energy will be spent for accelerating both objects in the opposite directions, which requires an increasing amount of energy due to the v^2 term (m(v + dv)^2/2 - mv^2/2 = mdv^2 / 2 + mdv, which is obviously greater than mdv^2/2).
That is not because you think that other people claims are not accurate, that you can attribute them different claims.
-
Lest we forget EmDrive history:
2002: 18.8mN/kW, SPR
2006: 287mN/kW, SPR
2009: 326mN/kW, SPR
2015: 1.2 - 21.3mN/kW, NASA
The 2009 data is for the 3.85Ghz Flight Thruster.
As Qu increases as the cavity gets bigger and cavity Rs drops as freq drops, going from a 3.85Ghz TE013 cavity to a 2.45GHz TE013 cavity should increase specific force to around 500mN/kW at room temp.
At 2.45Ghz Cu has a room temp Rs of around 8,000uOhm, Dropping the Cu temp to 77K (LN2) drops the Rs to around 15uOhms as per attached.
As cavity Q scales linear with Rs, the Cu room temp 88K Q at 2.45GHz should increase to a Q of 4.7x10^7 at 77K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency#Physics_of_SRF_cavities
If the EmDrive's specific force does scale linear with Q, then the room temp predicted force of 0.5N/kW could increase up to 267N/kW. If so that is in levitator range as 27kg/kW is in a very interesting force range.
Should be a very interesting experiment.
-
The discussions of spaceflight to near stars has focused on the power requirements to effect such a flight. These discussions have focused on nuclear fission reactors. Since this group has been on the bleeding edge of scientific controversy for so long and now seen confirmation of the effect I'd like to suggest that the power source for these flights may well turn out to be the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction otherwise disparagingly known as cold fusion.
That field has faced many of the same scientific prejudices and disdain that the EW drive has faced. It also has a dedicated cadre of DYI experimenters that have had many failures and occasional successes. Also like what has recently happened with the EW research there has been reputable research and successes by government agencies, in particular SPAWARS of the USN.
Just as the EW results have suggested that there is a new potential propulsion system, I suggest that the LENR results suggest that there is a potential new energy source that combined with the EM drive could be more than a little revolutionary.
I think that is important that we don't debate about LENR here (it is off topic) but we can use in our calculus LENR data, since the result is the same than with RTG or nuclear reactor.
Can you please indicate the state of the art LENR data in W/kg and total J/kg for use in space ?
-
...
If the EmDrive's specific force does scale linear with Q, then the room temp predicted force of 0.5N/kW could increase up to 267N/kW. If so that is in levitator range as 27kg/kW is in a very interesting force range.
Should be a very interesting experiment.
TT, The whole question is the "IF"...
In all honesty, I know of no real world processes that scale in a linear way, over such a long stretch (going from Q 10^5 to Q 10^10), certainly not when thermodynamics are part of the process...
Oh btw, I do not always share your relentless optimism, but that doesn't mean we re not on the same boat, so to say...
As Paul March already indicated , there are a number of parameters that come in play, all interacting with each other, certainly when you focus on performance. Some of these parameters are opponents, like momentum transfer and high Q.
For me it is clear the the mean difficulty of building an EMdrive (or even establishing that the effect is real) lays in the very fact it is a "complex system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
If you look at the characteristics of complex systems you'll see that many of those have been brought up on this forum.
fe. Remember the "robustness" demonstrated by monomorphic when he changed the surface quality? I was amazed how stable the resonance patterns stayed , regardless the bumpy surface.
There is very little that is really linear or straight forward in regard of the EMdrive, hence the difficulty to grasp what is really happening, why it is happening and how to make it behave in a consistent matter.
This could also explain Shawyer's low development rate and also some of the strange EW results of having better performances at lower input power.
The great thing of this forum is the multi-discipline approach, with so many people with all different backgrounds and insights, each bringing in a small part of this fantastic puzzle. Eventually, a notion of what is going on will start to shape up. but it is a search into many possible roads, with lots of dead ends...
But hey... that's what makes it such a fun thing to watch unfold , and yes...even participate in...
-
Bob012345, you simplify the claims of the people who disagree with you. The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else. You can not remove that if, that was already repeated many times, from the claim.
I think this is still not accurate. Kinetic energy is a special type of energy which is associated with motion and is dependent on the reference frame. When people talk about conversion of other (frame-independent) types of energy into kinetic energy, special care must be taken to make sure this conversion satisfies CoE in every inertial frame. If an object gains kinetic energy without pushing against something, it violates CoE (since kinetic energy gain will be frame dependent, while the expended potential energy is not). If it is pushing against something (but not carrying this "something" with it, like a conventional rocket), it will have to spend more and more energy per unit of time as its velocity relative to that "something" increases, since the potential energy will be spent for accelerating both objects in the opposite directions, which requires an increasing amount of energy due to the v^2 term (m(v + dv)^2/2 - mv^2/2 = mdv^2 / 2 + mdv, which is obviously greater than mdv^2/2).
I agree, but I am don't see the contradiction with my summary claim : The claim is that energy conservation is fundamentally violated if the emdrives doesn't steal energy to something else (in the context of a constant thrust greater than photon rocket for constant imput power)
Can you help me and reformulate this sentence ?
The aim isn't to have a sentence that give the complete story, but just to make it compatible with the CoE claims that some develop on this topic (You, Meberbs, I, etc...) The Bob sentence that I completed by an if seems to me now compatible with these claims (Of course it doesn't tell everything)
This type of interaction should be similar to space probes using gravity assist interactions going around another planet to get an extra kinetic energy boost to their next destination by infinitesimally slowing the planet's or moon's orbital velocity they are passing. In the cosmological gravitational field case, the required slowing would IMO most likely end up being a reduction in the cosmological microwave background temperature.
That is a very interesting answer ! It is a way of satisfying CoE.
That is what I ask for any theory explaining the Emdrive. When the Emdrive gets Kinetic Energy from the universe (in any given inertial reference frame) what happen to the rest of the universe ?
-
...
If the EmDrive's specific force does scale linear with Q, then the room temp predicted force of 0.5N/kW could increase up to 267N/kW. If so that is in levitator range as 27kg/kW is in a very interesting force range.
Should be a very interesting experiment.
TT, The whole question is the "IF"...
In all honesty, I know of no real world processes that scale in a linear way, over such a long stretch (going from Q 10^5 to Q 10^10), certainly not when thermodynamics are part of the process...
Oh btw, I do not always share your relentless optimism, but that doesn't mean we re not on the same boat, so to say...
As Paul March already indicated , there are a number of parameters that come in play, all interacting with each other, certainly when you focus on performance. Some of these parameters are opponents, like momentum transfer and high Q.
For me it is clear the the mean difficulty of building an EMdrive (or even establishing that the effect is real) lays in the very fact it is a "complex system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
If you look at the characteristics of complex systems you'll see that many of those have been brought up on this forum.
fe. Remember the "robustness" demonstrated by monomorphic when he changed the surface quality? I was amazed how stable the resonance patterns stayed , regardless the bumpy surface.
There is very little that is really linear or straight forward in regard of the EMdrive, hence the difficulty to grasp what is really happening, why it is happening and how to make it behave in a consistent matter.
This could also explain Shawyer's low development rate and also some of the strange EW results of having better performances at lower input power.
The great thing of this forum is the multi-discipline approach, with so many people with all different backgrounds and insights, each bringing in a small part of this fantastic puzzle. Eventually, a notion of what is going on will start to shape up. but it is a search into many possible roads, with lots of dead ends...
But hey... that's what makes it such a fun thing to watch unfold , and yes...even participate in...
I do understand complex systems and I also understand the basic physics that makes the "Shawyer Effect" generate force, at least to the level that following theory results in EmDrives that generate close to the predicted force.
What we do know from superconductive cavity theory is the Q should scale linear with Rs. Plus Rs scales with F and temp. Of course E & H field intensity also come into play and for sure achieving very high Q means being able to deal with very high stored energy and very high E & H fields.
I also know that dealing with YBCO is not easy and getting acceptable Rs at the Freq, Temp and H field intensity is a tricky game. Which is why Roger developed the latest EmDrive, which uses a flat YBCO thin film and a frustum with very steep side walls so the peak E & H fields are at the narrow end and away from the big end.
My game plan is to explore using a highly accurate, totally machined S band frustum +-20um and to do the necessary engineering to submerge the entire frustum in LN2.
While YBCO shows a possible pathway to a much lower Rs than can be obtained with LN2 cooled Cu, it will still be an interesting exercise to map the frustum Q and resonance changes at room temp and at 77K. Then to vary the power from 10mW to 250W and observe force generation changes at room temp vs 77K.
I believe doing this experiment with a Cu coated Al frustum will be a much easier and simpler exercise than adding in other new and unknown dimension by using YBCO. So for sure using YBCO may offer higher force generation but for now I plan to stick to something a lot easier and with less unknowns.
I have 5 frustums of various builds and designs, plus multiple 100W & 250W Rf amps arriving mid Dec. Have promised my wife to attend to a current health issue and enjoy Christmas and New Years with family and friends. So expect to re engage my experimental EmDrive research program sometime in Jan 2017.
BTW a little bread crumb:
Simple way to measure cavity Qu is to apply an Rf pulse, measure the rise time of forward power, take 20% of the 5x TC time as 1 Tc time and then calc the cavity Q using
Qu = Tc 2 Pi Freq
which can be done on every power pulse and allows dynamic Q changes to be measured and recorded.
So will be interesting to record dynamic Q changes as my frustums accelerate on the rotary test rig. Of course Roger's theory predicts the Q will drop as the EmDrive accelerates. The measure of the Q drop can then be used to calculate the energy loss from the cavity that is being used to cause acceleration.
So much information will come from such a simple to do measurement.
Should add that the Rs data I shared for the room temp and 77K Cu Rs plots are from real data measurements, so that helps to eliminate some of the complexity.
-
...I do understand complex systems and I also understand the basic physics that makes the "Shawyer Effect" generate force, at least to the level that following theory results in EmDrives that generate close to the predicted force....
An empty closed copper cavity in the shape of a truncated cone and electromagnetically excited at a microwave frequency at kW or less power is now deemed to be a complex system? :o
Essential features of complex systems (as defined in mathematical physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#Nonlinear_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#Chaotic_systems) are coupled dynamic nonlinear differential equations.
Yet, all the Finite Element (COMSOL, EMPro. etc.), Boundary Element Method (FEKO) and Finite Difference Method (Meep) analysis ever shown in all these 8 threads of the EM Drive, are based on solutions of linear differential equations. None of these analyses contain the coupled nonlinear differential equations features of a complex system So are all the papers of Shawyer. Furthermore, Shawyer himself has repeatedly said that all that is necessary to explain the EM Drive are Maxwell's equations (which are linear differential equations) and Newton's laws (also linear differential equations). The COMSOL, and FEKO analysis for mode shapes and frequencies match experimental results for frequency and mode shapes.
The statement that this is a complex system (as complex systems are defined) contradicts all the above, it even contradicts what Shawyer himself has published...it also contradicts the basis for all the analyses presented by Monomorphic and others (Monomorphic has used FEKO which solves linear differential equations, none of Monomorphic analyses have solved anything that can be defined as a complex system: no coupled dynamic nonlinear differential equations were solved).
The analysis presented by Zellerium at the top of this page: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612282#msg1612282 is also solving linear differential equations. Not meeting the definition of a complex system.
I am not aware or recall, anybody here ever even presenting coupled nonlinear differential equations for this problem, and much less attempting to solve them, even numerically !
Where is the evidence of strange attractors, or limit cycles, in the experimental data? On the contrary, just a few pages ago TT was showing a log-log plot over 6 orders of magnitude claiming simple behavior of thrust/InputPower versus Q
:o
If a definition of complex system is being used that does not involve nonlinear dynamic coupled equations, it better be defined mathematically. For example complex systems often exhibit self‐organization, which happens when systems spontaneously order themselves (generally in an optimal or more stable way) without “external” tuning of a control parameter. This feature is not found in chaotic systems and is often called anti‐chaos. Again, where is the evidence for self-organization in the experimental data ???
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
-
I have 5 frustums of various builds and designs, plus multiple 100W & 250W Rf amps arriving mid Dec. Have promised my wife to attend to a current health issue and enjoy Christmas and New Years with family and friends. So expect to re engage my experimental EmDrive research program sometime in Jan 2017.
Will you share here photos and precise data of your next builds ? I think that we would all be very interested !
I wish you a good recovery for your health problems.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice article, thank you. Giving you some traffic from elsewhere in the emdrive universe
-
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
For me, as an engineer that builds EmDrives by applying Roger's theory equations, it is not complex at all. I understand the physics, as explained by Roger, and when applied to the real world, see it generate the predicted results.
As for Q * power scaling linear with force generation, that is just accelerator physics as is the relationship between Q and Rs and temp and freq. Of course in the real world not everything scales linear but as I see it, the vast majority of the effects do scale linear because if not there would not be accelerator cavities with Q 5x10^11.
So for sure it will not be a simple build to get a high performance room temp cavity to work well when immersed in LN2, but doing so it not something that has never been done before and thankfully Google is really good at digging out build data.
With a Cu 300K (room temp) Rs of around 8,000uOhm and a 77K Rs of around 15uOhm, there is more than ample margin to experimentally measure both the resultant Qu from doing forward power 1x Tc rise time calcs and doing force generation.
It then gets very exciting and interesting to do real time Q measurements with a non accelerating and accelerating thruster to see if the Q drops during acceleration and then to measure the energy representative of the Q drop which has exited the cavity and is doing work to accelerate the EmDrive.
That should be VERY interesting data as only a small increase in angular velocity on a rotary test rig should be sufficient to measure gained KE vs cavity energy drop from dropped Q.
More data will be added by reducing Rf amp power to become low enough to maintain constant velocity as against rotary test rig static and dynamic air resistance load and again record what happens to cavity Q as power is varied up and down around that constant velocity point.
Interesting times ahead.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
-
Just out of curiosity, I started building the Cannae geometry based on their patent dimensions as attached and ran an Eigenmode sweep. Came up with the TM010 at 1.09 GHz which is pretty close to their resonant frequency of 1.047 GHz. I probably didn't make the grooves perfectly as I wasn't sure what the 1.513 dimension was referring to (bottom right corner of the attached picture).
The next mode is the TM110 around 1.7 GHz.
I wonder what balance between E field intensity and power gradient would yield optimal thrust...
What do the surface currents look like, slots vs no slots?
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
One issue is NASA measured static force generation big to small with a dielectric at the small end and small to big when the dielectric was not used.
Roger Shawyer, in 2002 and in 2006 also measured static force being generated in non dielectric frustums small to big as attached.
Would like to see any of these theories explain the small to big non dielectric static force generation that has been measured by NASA and Roger.
For sure, any theory needs to be able to explain ALL the measured data.
-
I have 5 frustums of various builds and designs, plus multiple 100W & 250W Rf amps arriving mid Dec. Have promised my wife to attend to a current health issue and enjoy Christmas and New Years with family and friends. So expect to re engage my experimental EmDrive research program sometime in Jan 2017.
Will you share here photos and precise data of your next builds ? I think that we would all be very interested !
I wish you a good recovery for your health problems.
That is the plan. Lots of data, picts and videos. I believe any EmDrive test data is way too important to not be made public.
With my 1st test run, the Rf amp's variable attenuator died shortly after I started my tests and I didn't get an chance to take a video. Was compounded in that it was lost in shipment after being repaired. This time I have 4 brand new Rf amps arriving mid Dec. 2 x 100W and 2 x 250W, so if anything goes bang again, it will not stop the test program.
-
Just out of curiosity, I started building the Cannae geometry based on their patent dimensions as attached and ran an Eigenmode sweep. Came up with the TM010 at 1.09 GHz which is pretty close to their resonant frequency of 1.047 GHz. I probably didn't make the grooves perfectly as I wasn't sure what the 1.513 dimension was referring to (bottom right corner of the attached picture).
The next mode is the TM110 around 1.7 GHz.
I wonder what balance between E field intensity and power gradient would yield optimal thrust...
What do the surface currents look like, slots vs no slots?
Zellerium:
And what was the assumed ac resistivity of the niobium cavity and the RF input power that generated the calculated E-field values shown in your plots?
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
Yeah, not looking good to me either. I don't see any model of how it "blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time", nor any empirical indication. What I see is that the response time for all of the calibration pulses is very consistently ~4 seconds at multiple positions of the pendulum, both before and after heating, including in the null test where the pendulum was still highly displaced by the thermal effects when they applied the second calibration pulse.
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.
Sort of how a slightly off freq magnetron will be pulled into a freq lock with a resonant load that has a higher Q than that of the magnetron even though the high Q load has a different resonant freq to the magnetron. Give them time and they will work it out and lock to each other.
May also be related to the force bandwidth being much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
Point is that EmDrives do generate force but please do not think of that force as being like any force you have ever experienced before. It has very different characterists.
So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
-
...I do understand complex systems and I also understand the basic physics that makes the "Shawyer Effect" generate force, at least to the level that following theory results in EmDrives that generate close to the predicted force....
An empty closed copper cavity in the shape of a truncated cone and electromagnetically excited at a microwave frequency at kW or less power is now deemed to be a complex system? :o
Essential features of complex systems (as defined in mathematical physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#Nonlinear_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#Chaotic_systems) are coupled dynamic nonlinear differential equations.
Yet, all the Finite Element (COMSOL, EMPro. etc.), Boundary Element Method (FEKO) and Finite Difference Method (Meep) analysis ever shown in all these 8 threads of the EM Drive, are based on solutions of linear differential equations. None of these analyses contain the coupled nonlinear differential equations features of a complex system So are all the papers of Shawyer. Furthermore, Shawyer himself has repeatedly said that all that is necessary to explain the EM Drive are Maxwell's equations (which are linear differential equations) and Newton's laws (also linear differential equations). The COMSOL, and FEKO analysis for mode shapes and frequencies match experimental results for frequency and mode shapes.
The statement that this is a complex system (as complex systems are defined) contradicts all the above, it even contradicts what Shawyer himself has published...it also contradicts the basis for all the analyses presented by Monomorphic and others (Monomorphic has used FEKO which solves linear differential equations, none of Monomorphic analyses have solved anything that can be defined as a complex system: no coupled dynamic nonlinear differential equations were solved).
The analysis presented by Zellerium at the top of this page: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612282#msg1612282 is also solving linear differential equations. Not meeting the definition of a complex system.
I am not aware or recall, anybody here ever even presenting coupled nonlinear differential equations for this problem, and much less attempting to solve them, even numerically !
Where is the evidence of strange attractors, or limit cycles, in the experimental data? On the contrary, just a few pages ago TT was showing a log-log plot over 6 orders of magnitude claiming simple behavior of thrust/InputPower versus Q
:o
If a definition of complex system is being used that does not involve nonlinear dynamic coupled equations, it better be defined mathematically. For example complex systems often exhibit self‐organization, which happens when systems spontaneously order themselves (generally in an optimal or more stable way) without “external” tuning of a control parameter. This feature is not found in chaotic systems and is often called anti‐chaos. Again, where is the evidence for self-organization in the experimental data ???
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
Dr. Rodal, to be fair I was impressed by the fact that TT had backed off of the direct promotion of Shawyer's theory in his last post... and since none of the mathematical models or any current theory successfully explains any underlying mechanism resulting in thrust, something more complex than expected must be going on.
I believe it unfair to insist on a ridged mathematical definition of words like "complex" when the discussion moves back and forth between mathematical models and practical engineering.
It is certain that there are significant inconsistencies in, at least how Shawyer's theory is communicated (being generous). But at the same time there is no current theory that completely explains the thrust, or fully explains any systemic or experimental error that leads to a measurement interpreted as thrust.
-
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
For me, as an engineer that builds EmDrives by applying Roger's theory equations, it is not complex at all. I understand the physics, as explained by Roger, and when applied to the real world, see it generate the predicted results.
As for Q * power scaling linear with force generation, that is just accelerator physics as is the relationship between Q and Rs and temp and freq. Of course in the real world not everything scales linear but as I see it, the vast majority of the effects do scale linear because if not there would not be accelerator cavities with Q 5x10^11.
So for sure it will not be a simple build to get a high performance room temp cavity to work well when immersed in LN2, but doing so it not something that has never been done before and thankfully Google is really good at digging out build data.
With a Cu 300K (room temp) Rs of around 8,000uOhm and a 77K Rs of around 15uOhm, there is more than ample margin to experimentally measure both the resultant Qu from doing forward power 1x Tc rise time calcs and doing force generation.
It then gets very exciting and interesting to do real time Q measurements with a non accelerating and accelerating thruster to see if the Q drops during acceleration and then to measure the energy representative of the Q drop which has exited the cavity and is doing work to accelerate the EmDrive.
That should be VERY interesting data as only a small increase in angular velocity on a rotary test rig should be sufficient to measure gained KE vs cavity energy drop from dropped Q.
More data will be added by reducing Rf amp power to become low enough to maintain constant velocity as against rotary test rig static and dynamic air resistance load and again record what happens to cavity Q as power is varied up and down around that constant velocity point.
Interesting times ahead.
And then again...,
There is a difference between Shawyer's theory and the formulas he and it seems you use to describe and predict, the design and performance of an EmDrive. It has always seemed to me that Shawyer's evolution of the EmDrive has been based on an engineering based trial and error. Thus his math based formulas also seem closer to having been derived from the engineering experience.., trial and error...
Beyond that I remind you again that any attempt to use how the efficiency of particle accelerators scales is fatally flawed in that the EmDrives being publicly discussed operate at very different frequencies and incorporate very different technologies. That being the case a there is a far greater burden on you to explain just why what is seen in the case of an accelerator, might apply in the case of a copper box filled with microwaves....
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
One issue is NASA measured static force generation big to small with a dielectric at the small end and small to big when the dielectric was not used.
Roger Shawyer, in 2002 and in 2006 also measured static force being generated in non dielectric frustums small to big as attached.
Would like to see any of these theories explain the small to big non dielectric static force generation that has been measured by NASA and Roger.
For sure, any theory needs to be able to explain ALL the measured data.
Or the systemic and/or experimental error that lead to the data in question....
I harp on this because even though you continue to point to Shawyer's past claimed results, there is very little in the way of published design detail of either the frustums or experimental equipment and environment, he used.
It makes the claims sound a great deal more like hearsay, than the result of real experimental data... And I am not saying that there was not data, just that it does not seem to be available for critical examination.
-
...I believe it unfair to insist on a ridged mathematical definition of words like "complex" when the discussion moves back and forth between mathematical models and practical engineering....
If you look back at what TheTraveller was responding to, was this:
...For me it is clear the the mean difficulty of building an EMdrive (or even establishing that the effect is real) lays in the very fact it is a "complex system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
If you look at the characteristics of complex systems you'll see that many of those have been brought up on this forum.
...
Which cites precisely the same article that I cited ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612417#msg1612417 ).
It is fair then to use the definition of complex system in the cited article, which is what I did.
Which is the definition of complex system, as understood in Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc..
While excessive rigor may lead to rigor mortis, lack of sufficient rigor (the definition in the cited article) may lead to confusion ;). Hopefully we may reach a happy medium steering away from either end ;)
If by "complex" it is meant mysterious as in "we have no agreed model as to why something apparently non-complex as a copper cavity may self-accelerate" then we agree ;)
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
Yeah, not looking good to me either. I don't see any model of how it "blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time", nor any empirical indication. What I see is that the response time for all of the calibration pulses is very consistently ~4 seconds at multiple positions of the pendulum, both before and after heating, including in the null test where the pendulum was still highly displaced by the thermal effects when they applied the second calibration pulse.
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.
Sort of how a slightly off freq magnetron will be pulled into a freq lock with a resonant load that has a higher Q than that of the magnetron even though the high Q load has a different resonant freq to the magnetron. Give them time and they will work it out and lock to each other.
May also be related to the force bandwidth being much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
Point is that EmDrives do generate force but please do not think of that force as being like any force you have ever experienced before. It has very different characterists.
So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
Phil:
Your above explanation does cover some of what is going on in the slower than expected build up in the force profile for these fall 2015 in-vacuum EW Lab data runs, but IMO not all. First off through 20/20 hindsight it became apparent we picked the worst possible way from a thermal interaction viewpoint to integrate the PLL box and RF amp & its ~5kg heat-sink with the copper frustum. We would have been much better off to have mounted the RF amp and heat-sink at right angles to the frustum's Z-axis thrust axis so their thermally driven expansions and contractions did not interact with the torque pendulum in the very detrimental way they did where we ran them for this fall 2015 test series. My bad! If I had followed the right angle mounting approach the force plots would be much more prompt as was shown in figure 12 in the EW Journal of Propulsion and Power report where the RF amp and heat-sink were used as the torque pendulum's counter mass at the other end of the TP and were their major thermal expansion axis was mounted at right angles to the frustum's thrust axis.
BTW, the EW torque pendulum (TP) was always balanced with one end slightly down relative to the other end, so that it would have a gravity gradient induced preference to home on a zero force point. Otherwise the TP's long-term zero-thrust baseline drift wandered all over the place in a chaotic manner that made repetitive testing near impossible. This TP baseline homing when combined with the center of gravity shifts induced in the TP by my bad integration design choice for the ICFTA is another reason why these in-vacuum force plots look so ugly. However there IS still a real impulse force being generated in these in-vacuum runs that is riding on all the thermally induced TP zero-thrust cg-baseline shifts. Next time around though with the use of spherical endcaps in the frustums, we shouldn't have to worry so much about these thermal issues if we can match or better your TE013 ~8-milli-Newton thruster performance.
Best, and get well soonest.
Paul M.
-
To cut to the chase:
However there IS still a real impulse force being generated in these in-vacuum runs that is riding on all the thermally induced TP cg shifts.
How do we know any of this? Why should we trust any of the thrust numbers in the paper?
-
I have been working on a simulation of the recent NASA frustum with dialectric insert that includes modeling the antenna. What I found most interesting was comparing the e-fields and surface currents between the frustum with dialectric insert and the frustum without. While being the same mode, they appear quite different! ???
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
It also could be like the tale of the blind men describing an elephant. http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
Whereas they all are right, but each a little wrong. Only data from testing will shed a light on what is happening with this anomaly as we plug our research data into the models.
An exciting time indeed.
Shell
-
I have been working on a simulation of the recent NASA frustum with dialectric insert that includes modeling the antenna. What I found most interesting was comparing the e-fields and surface currents between the frustum with dialectric insert and the frustum without. While being the same mode, they appear quite different! ???
Very nice.
I see from your results how the dielectric keeps the Electric Field E away from the small end, and it confines it to the Big End.
This agrees with NASA's experimental results that the heat dissipation (mainly due to the magnetic field producing eddy currents) was much larger at the big end than the small end, when using the dielectric.
It would be nice if you would also show the magnetic field with and without the dielectric for the same identical cases.
Here you go...
-
I have been working on a simulation of the recent NASA frustum with dialectric insert that includes modeling the antenna. What I found most interesting was comparing the e-fields and surface currents between the frustum with dialectric insert and the frustum without. While being the same mode, they appear quite different! ???
Very nice.
I see from your results how the dielectric keeps the Electric Field E away from the small end, and it confines it to the Big End.
This agrees with NASA's experimental results that the heat dissipation (mainly due to the magnetic field producing eddy currents) was much larger at the big end than the small end, when using the dielectric.
It would be nice if you would also show the magnetic field with and without the dielectric for the same identical cases.
Here you go...
You need to increase the number of nodes, need a finer mesh. The results are quite a bit away from convergence, as seen in the contour plot for the small end (upper picture here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612536#msg1612536 ).
Also as seen by the fact that the contour plot for the electric field do not match well the COMSOL results from NASA with a dielectric
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188428;image)
or the results from my exact solution without a dielectric.
-
Just out of curiosity, I started building the Cannae geometry based on their patent dimensions as attached and ran an Eigenmode sweep. Came up with the TM010 at 1.09 GHz which is pretty close to their resonant frequency of 1.047 GHz. I probably didn't make the grooves perfectly as I wasn't sure what the 1.513 dimension was referring to (bottom right corner of the attached picture).
The next mode is the TM110 around 1.7 GHz.
I wonder what balance between E field intensity and power gradient would yield optimal thrust...
What do the surface currents look like, slots vs no slots?
Zellerium:
And what was the assumed ac resistivity of the niobium cavity and the RF input power that generated the calculated E-field values shown in your plots?
That first sim was an air filled copper Cannae drive. The mesh was too sparse to see surface currents in the slots, and now I realize the inside should be vacuum...
So this next simulation assumes a resistivity ratio R(300K)/R(4K) ~ 10^4 as measured in this paper [http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_030_06_1068.pdf (http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_030_06_1068.pdf)] , I took the room temperature conductivity and added 4 orders of magnitude so it became ~6.5 E10 S/m.
The mesh of the vacuum on the slot side was specified to be inside>length based>7 mm (arbitrarily chosen) and the slot side cavity was surface>length based > 7 mm (also arbitrary) which resulted in ~225,000 tetrahedra.
The first three Eigenmodes after 700 MHz are:
1.0927 1.7174 1.7175 [GHz]
And the E field plots for Eig1 (TM010) and Eig2 (TM110) are pictured below.
BUT the exact slot geometry is still confusing me:
The bottom plate of the cavity has 72 identical slots. Each slot on the bottom plate has a mill-cut into both slot walls at approximately 1 mm below the primary plane of the bottom plate.
I'm pretty sure that's the 1.513 cm dimension I missed. It sounds like he's trying to say the slot walls were milled, maybe a 4 axis cnc was used to come in at a really shallow angle? Or did they come in from the top and cut out a ridge of some sort... The picture of the FEM model used shows some kind of mill cut but I don't understand how or why that was done.
-
I have been working on a simulation of the recent NASA frustum with dialectric insert that includes modeling the antenna. What I found most interesting was comparing the e-fields and surface currents between the frustum with dialectric insert and the frustum without. While being the same mode, they appear quite different! ???
Very nice.
I see from your results how the dielectric keeps the Electric Field E away from the small end, and it confines it to the Big End.
This agrees with NASA's experimental results that the heat dissipation (mainly due to the magnetic field producing eddy currents) was much larger at the big end than the small end, when using the dielectric.
It would be nice if you would also show the magnetic field with and without the dielectric for the same identical cases.
Here you go...
You need to increase the number of nodes, need a finer mesh. The results are quite a bit away from convergence, as seen in the contour plot for the small end (upper picture here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612536#msg1612536 ).
Also as seen by the fact that the contour plot for the electric field do not match well the COMSOL results from NASA with a dielectric
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=1188429;image)
or the results from my exact solution without a dielectric.
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
-
...
The mesh of the vacuum on the slot side was specified to be inside>length based>7 mm (arbitrarily chosen) and the slot side cavity was surface>length based > 7 mm (also arbitrary) which resulted in ~225,000 tetrahedra.
...
Now, that's a fine mesh ;)
How long does it take for this model to run ?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389660;image)
-
...
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
Your rainbow intensity also goes to red, but the charge contour does not go to red. How do you set the rainbow intensity limits?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389672;image)
and look at the currents on the big end for your model:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389648;image)
-
...
The mesh of the vacuum on the slot side was specified to be inside>length based>7 mm (arbitrarily chosen) and the slot side cavity was surface>length based > 7 mm (also arbitrary) which resulted in ~225,000 tetrahedra.
...
Now, that's a fine mesh ;)
How long does it take for this model to run ?
:) Took my 32 cores ~10 min
-
...
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
Your rainbow intensity also goes to red, but the charge contour does not go to red. How do you set the rainbow intensity limits?
and look at the currents on the big end for your model:
Also notice the electric charges are pixelated while the surface currents are not. The electric charges must be calculated differently using a less dense mesh. I also ran these using 40W, not 100W, so there will be a difference there.
-
...
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
Your rainbow intensity also goes to red, but the charge contour does not go to red. How do you set the rainbow intensity limits?
and look at the currents on the big end for your model:
Also notice the electric charges are pixelated while the surface currents are not. The electric charges must be calculated differently using a less dense mesh. I also ran these using 40W, not 100W, so there will be a difference there.
Due to the meshing rules of FEKO the grid is sweatable as compared to the highest calculated/involved frequency. Sure there are a number of ways to override the standard settings to increase the number of nodes if needed. (Oh man it costs much more cpu time so far for each finer grid definition :-\ , Since I have no full version the model size is limited to ~1GB only, therefore I have no chance to calculate a mesh like shown below. Nevertheless a 1GB model with standard mesh and limited frequuency range, lets say 0.5GHz needs up to a full day using my old PC where the program is installed on. )
To the surface Charges, I guess there is simply no interpolation between the triangle surface elements for this kind of result representation, I also wonder about it but it is not implementated in the software.
For all other representations (E,H,Currents) the interpolation seems activated.
3.10.3 Automatic meshing
Automatic meshing takes several model properties into account and generates a mesh appropriate for the configuration. Local refinement may still be necessary, but in most cases the automatic meshes will give a reasonable mesh. A mesh is built relative to the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave in the medium of propagation. Each solution method has different requirements and often the model itself will influence the accuracy of results. The following model properties are considered:
Frequency
The shortest wavelength corresponds to the highest simulation frequency. Note then that the frequency range for the simulation must be set before automatic meshes can be generated.
Solution method
Depending on the solution method being used to solve the problem, different mesh requirements may be needed. For example, a FEM model requires settings for tetrahedra, a MoM solution requires settings for triangles and wires, while a hybrid solution needs to take both into account.
Dielectric properties
The dielectric properties of the media in the model will affect the propagation speed of an electromagnetic wave in a medium, which will in turn affect the wavelength. Dielectric media are taken into account in all cases except in the case where infinite layers are being used. In these cases, local refinement must be applied.
Geometry curvature
Even in cases where a finer mesh isn't required for accurate solution results, it may still be required to accurately model aspects of the geometry. Automatic meshes will attempt to reasonably conform to the original geometry, the settings of which can be modified on the Advanced tab.
Local mesh refinement settings may still be applied to individual components in a model. Any local mesh refinement settings will be respected, meaning that a user's local mesh refinement setting will never be overwritten.
Wires
For wires, the wavelength (λ) is determined based on the maximum simulation frequency and the surrounding medium, see Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: Automatic meshing for wires.
Type Fine Standard Coarse
Method of moments (MoM) 1/25λ 1/12λ 1/8λ
Faces and edges
If any of the bounding regions of a face have user-defined local mesh sizes, then the face will inherit the smallest of these local mesh sizes. An edge will inherit the smallest mesh size from its bounding faces. If a face is the bounding face of a FEM region, then the first order automatic mesh size of that region will be used. If a face is the bounding face of a VEP region, then the mesh size of that region will be used. For a metal face bounding a SEP region, the smallest wavelength in the media bounding the face will be used to determine the mesh size. In all other cases the largest wavelength for the bounding media is used to determine the mesh size. When higher order basis functions are used for the MoM, junction edges (where multiple faces share an edge) and open edges (where an edge only has one face bordering it) are meshed as for RWG or order 0.5. See Table 3-9 for the automatic meshing for faces and edges.
Table 3-9: Automatic meshing for faces and edges.
Type Fine Standard Coarse
MoM (RWG or 0.5 order basis function) 1/16λ 1/12λ 1/8λ
MoM (1.5 order basis function) 3/16λ 1/4λ 3/8λ
MoM (2.5 order basis function) 1/3.2λ 1/2.4λ 1/1.6λ
MoM (3.5 order basis function) 1/1.6λ 1/1.2λ 1/0.8λ
Physical optics (PO) 1/10λ 1/8λ 1/6λ
Large element PO (LE-PO) 9/5λ 9/5λ 9/5λ
Geometrical optics (RL-GO) ∞ ∞ ∞
Regions
For regions, the wavelength (λ) is determined based on the maximum simulation frequency and the medium properties of the region, see Table 3-10. The specified lengths will be applied to the tetrahedron edge lengths.
Table 3-10: Automatic meshing for regions.
Type Fine Standard Coarse
Finite element method (1 st order FEM) 1/15λ 1/10λ 1/6λ
Finite element method (2 nd order FEM) 1/12λ 1/8λ 1/6λ
Volume equivalence principle (VEP) 1/16λ 1/12λ 1/8λ
Voxels
For voxels, the wavelength (λ) is determined based on the maximum simulation frequency and the medium properties of the region, see Table 3-1120 The specified size will be applied to the voxel edge length.
Table 3-11: Automatic meshing for voxels.
Type Fine Standard Coarse
Finite difference time domain (FDTD) 1/28λ 1/20λ 1/14λ
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1387364;image)
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
One issue is NASA measured static force generation big to small with a dielectric at the small end and small to big when the dielectric was not used.
Roger Shawyer, in 2002 and in 2006 also measured static force being generated in non dielectric frustums small to big as attached.
Would like to see any of these theories explain the small to big non dielectric static force generation that has been measured by NASA and Roger.
For sure, any theory needs to be able to explain ALL the measured data.
Or the systemic and/or experimental error that lead to the data in question....
I harp on this because even though you continue to point to Shawyer's past claimed results, there is very little in the way of published design detail of either the frustums or experimental equipment and environment, he used.
It makes the claims sound a great deal more like hearsay, than the result of real experimental data... And I am not saying that there was not data, just that it does not seem to be available for critical examination.
Have you read both of Roger's recently posted engineering test reports for the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives as attached?
As an engineer, there are more than enough data to replicate both the EmDrives and the fairly simple static force measurement systems. Here Roger had an advantage over EW as the force was 100s of times greater than the 100uN EW had to deal with.
I see the 2 test reports as equivalent to the earlier EW in air test report.
-
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
For me, as an engineer that builds EmDrives by applying Roger's theory equations, it is not complex at all. I understand the physics, as explained by Roger, and when applied to the real world, see it generate the predicted results.
As for Q * power scaling linear with force generation, that is just accelerator physics as is the relationship between Q and Rs and temp and freq. Of course in the real world not everything scales linear but as I see it, the vast majority of the effects do scale linear because if not there would not be accelerator cavities with Q 5x10^11.
So for sure it will not be a simple build to get a high performance room temp cavity to work well when immersed in LN2, but doing so it not something that has never been done before and thankfully Google is really good at digging out build data.
With a Cu 300K (room temp) Rs of around 8,000uOhm and a 77K Rs of around 15uOhm, there is more than ample margin to experimentally measure both the resultant Qu from doing forward power 1x Tc rise time calcs and doing force generation.
It then gets very exciting and interesting to do real time Q measurements with a non accelerating and accelerating thruster to see if the Q drops during acceleration and then to measure the energy representative of the Q drop which has exited the cavity and is doing work to accelerate the EmDrive.
That should be VERY interesting data as only a small increase in angular velocity on a rotary test rig should be sufficient to measure gained KE vs cavity energy drop from dropped Q.
More data will be added by reducing Rf amp power to become low enough to maintain constant velocity as against rotary test rig static and dynamic air resistance load and again record what happens to cavity Q as power is varied up and down around that constant velocity point.
Interesting times ahead.
And then again...,
There is a difference between Shawyer's theory and the formulas he and it seems you use to describe and predict, the design and performance of an EmDrive. It has always seemed to me that Shawyer's evolution of the EmDrive has been based on an engineering based trial and error. Thus his math based formulas also seem closer to having been derived from the engineering experience.., trial and error...
Beyond that I remind you again that any attempt to use how the efficiency of particle accelerators scales is fatally flawed in that the EmDrives being publicly discussed operate at very different frequencies and incorporate very different technologies. That being the case a there is a far greater burden on you to explain just why what is seen in the case of an accelerator, might apply in the case of a copper box filled with microwaves....
Roger's EmDrive theory was developed by a group of UK academics and aerospace experts, funded by some of the money provided by the UK gov. The whole program, theory development, creation of the EmDrives, test rigs and review of the test data was handled by a UK MOD select panel of experts.
BTW non SC accelerator cavities are copper boxes filled with microwaves. If you think accelerator cavity theory doesn't apply to EmDrive cavities, please review this data and point out what does not apply:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency#Physics_of_SRF_cavities
-
...
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
Your rainbow intensity also goes to red, but the charge contour does not go to red. How do you set the rainbow intensity limits?
and look at the currents on the big end for your model:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1387364;image)
Could you show the magnetic fields please? TM010 especially.
Thanks!!!!
Shell
-
...
Due to the meshing rules of FEKO the grid is sweatable as compared to the highest calculated/involved frequency. Sure there are a number of ways to override the standard settings to increase the number of nodes if needed. (Oh man it costs much more cpu time so far for each finer grid definition :-\ )...
X_Ray, thanks for taking the time to explain this.
I am not happy with what FEKO is doing with this automatic meshing.
Look at this for example:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1389652;image)
The contours on the small end are clearly not fine enough, the contours are not even uniformly symmetric around the axis of axysymmetry.
One must be very careful with these numerical solutions, particularly when using "automatic meshing".
These FEKO results shown for TM212 are not as good as the COMSOL FEA analysis done at NASA.
I do not think that COMSOL is all that great either (I particularly dislike the fact that COMSOL does not appear to have a theoretical manual, it just has users manuals), it is not on the same class as ABAQUS or ADINA.
These meshes are too coarse, the contour boundaries are not smooth, being polygonal, and showing some artifacts, particularly when looking at details of the solution... The higher the m, n and p, the finer mesh one needs.
-
...
They match, I just wasn't showing the correct "surface charge."
Your rainbow intensity also goes to red, but the charge contour does not go to red. How do you set the rainbow intensity limits?
and look at the currents on the big end for your model:
snip
Could you show the magnetic fields please? TM010 especially.
Thanks!!!!
Shell
Shell, please take a look at:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1608903#msg1608903
There you will find several different situations: Brady Cone- without dielectric, dielectric at the small end, dielectric at the big end, and a modified size of it at the big end, all showing "TM010*".
@all
*Mode notation based on this quantum numbers (TXmnp) fits for a cylindrical cavity shape only, while there is a similar standard definition for rectangular cavities available, but for our freaky shapes- there exist NO standard notation till now. If anyone has a better idea for the notation in a truncated conical cavity please let us know.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1611223#msg1611223
Best regards
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
Yeah, not looking good to me either. I don't see any model of how it "blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time", nor any empirical indication. What I see is that the response time for all of the calibration pulses is very consistently ~4 seconds at multiple positions of the pendulum, both before and after heating, including in the null test where the pendulum was still highly displaced by the thermal effects when they applied the second calibration pulse.
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.
Sort of how a slightly off freq magnetron will be pulled into a freq lock with a resonant load that has a higher Q than that of the magnetron even though the high Q load has a different resonant freq to the magnetron. Give them time and they will work it out and lock to each other.
May also be related to the force bandwidth being much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
Point is that EmDrives do generate force but please do not think of that force as being like any force you have ever experienced before. It has very different characterists.
So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
Phil:
Your above explanation does cover some of what is going on in the slower than expected build up in the force profile for these fall 2015 in-vacuum EW Lab data runs, but IMO not all. First off through 20/20 hindsight it became apparent we picked the worst possible way from a thermal interaction viewpoint to integrate the PLL box and RF amp & its ~5kg heat-sink with the copper frustum. We would have been much better off to have mounted the RF amp and heat-sink at right angles to the frustum's Z-axis thrust axis so their thermally driven expansions and contractions did not interact with the torque pendulum in the very detrimental way they did where we ran them for this fall 2015 test series. My bad! If I had followed the right angle mounting approach the force plots would be much more prompt as was shown in figure 12 in the EW Journal of Propulsion and Power report where the RF amp and heat-sink were used as the torque pendulum's counter mass at the other end of the TP and were their major thermal expansion axis was mounted at right angles to the frustum's thrust axis.
BTW, the EW torque pendulum (TP) was always balanced with one end slightly down relative to the other end, so that it would have a gravity gradient induced preference to home on a zero force point. Otherwise the TP's long-term zero-thrust baseline drift wandered all over the place in a chaotic manner that made repetitive testing near impossible. This TP baseline homing when combined with the center of gravity shifts induced in the TP by my bad integration design choice for the ICFTA is another reason why these in-vacuum force plots look so ugly. However there IS still a real impulse force being generated in these in-vacuum runs that is riding on all the thermally induced TP zero-thrust cg-baseline shifts. Next time around though with the use of spherical endcaps in the frustums, we shouldn't have to worry so much about these thermal issues if we can match or better your TE013 ~8-milli-Newton thruster performance.
Best, and get well soonest.
Paul M.
Paul,
What I do know is even with my 8,000 Q frustum, if the freq was off even a few kHz, the frustum would sit there and "fart around" maybe generating a force or maybe not.
That was when I mapped the force bandwidth and found it was very much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
It was also why I developed the technique to tune for min reflected power at low power, a watt or so, then step it up to 10 watts and recheck lowest reflected power and then quickly kick the power to 100 watts and recheck again. Each time trying to do the tuning check in less than 10 sec. Then let everything cool down and do another quick check, another cool down and do the money shot for weight change on the scale.
I found that not doing this process could still generate a weight change on the scale but not immediately. However if I did the tuning correctly, force generation seemed to be immediate.
Which says that even though all I had was the digital readout on my scale, I could still see a not properly tuned EmDrive struggle to generate Force.
Which I believe fits with what EW saw and what Roger saw. Static force generation may not be immediate but the EmDrive may still be able to lock onto a not perfect tune and still generate Force but not immediately.
-
...I believe it unfair to insist on a ridged mathematical definition of words like "complex" when the discussion moves back and forth between mathematical models and practical engineering....
If you look back at what TheTraveller was responding to, was this:
...For me it is clear the the mean difficulty of building an EMdrive (or even establishing that the effect is real) lays in the very fact it is a "complex system"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
If you look at the characteristics of complex systems you'll see that many of those have been brought up on this forum.
...
Which cites precisely the same article that I cited ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612417#msg1612417 ).
It is fair then to use the definition of complex system in the cited article, which is what I did.
Which is the definition of complex system, as understood in Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc..
While excessive rigor may lead to rigor mortis, lack of sufficient rigor (the definition in the cited article) may lead to confusion ;). Hopefully we may reach a happy medium steering away from either end ;)
If by "complex" it is meant mysterious as in "we have no agreed model as to why something apparently non-complex as a copper cavity may self-accelerate" then we agree ;)
I was about to say that TT only reacted upon my post, but you've already noticed, i see...
By times , this forum is really intimidating for people (like me) that do not have a professional scientific education. I can no longer count the times I've deleted posts before even posting them, mainly due to the personal question what I could possibly add to a discussion ?
Compared to people like you, Dr Rodal, or Todd Desiato, Notsosureofit or so many others inhere, I realize more then enough how much I'm lagging on indepth knowledge...
yet.. the EMdrive subject has captivated my interest, so i can't help wondering and researching about it, leaning on the solid but basic science training i had, many years ago.
I do realize that I'm hindered by not speaking the "scientific/mathematical language", need to get a point or an observation across...It is a handicap...
what I mean with "complex" is that there are a considerable number (yet to define list) of parameters that make up the EMdrive effect. These parameters interact in such a complex matter that it becomes very hard to identify what parameter(s) contribute to an observable result.
One of the things I started thinking and researching about is what reflection actually is. What happens when an EMwave hits a copper lattice ? As Todd identified some pages ago, the question WHY keeps haunting me...
with the limited knowledge i have, it is impossible for me to identify if I'm right or wrong, but here is a first observation of mine :
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Sail-Force1.gif/220px-Sail-Force1.gif) (http://www.solitaryroad.com/c1033/ole1.gif)
Remembering my classes in optics I always considered the amount of reflection being a linear relation to the incident angle. However , a few months ago (while working on a 3d rendering fresnel material) I realized that a reflected wave has not a linear relation to the "cos" of the incident angle, but behave slightly differently the bigger the angle between surface normal and ray gets...
(https://i.imgsafe.org/4cd3aeacec.jpg)
The material is copper, the frequency is not correct because I could not find an exact match. I choose this one because it illustrates the point I would like to make very well. We all know the real world effect when looking at a metal surface at a very shallow angle : the reflections are getting intenser....
Going back to the frustum, knowing that waves going back and forth between both end plates to create standing waves, I can't help noticing that for waves going from small to big end the angle of incidence to the normal is larger then for waves coming from the other side. If the reflected ray was truly linear, that difference would be compensated by (surface big end - surface small end)/2. Everything cancels out, net result is zero...
However, the relation of angle and reflectance is NOT linear, which means, if i get that correct, that for waves going from small to big end have a higher degree of reflectance...
More over, these graphs change appearance with shifting frequency. so any small change in frequency changes the non linear look of the graph...
So my question to those who know more then me : what is the relation between reflectance and momentum ?
Because, if momentum is in a linear relation to the reflectance, that on it self is not linear, it would mean that momentum is not linear to the cos of the incidence angle....
At 90°, the momentum should be 0, no?
This is one of the (unanswered) questions to why i consider this a "complex system". If momentum changes in a non linear way, depending on the "incidence angle" and on "frequency change" then it is damn hard to track the exact values...
Well, as I have no reputation to defend and no honor to fight for, I thought I might get some flak instead and position me in the line of fire... :)
I've probably made a wrong assumption somewhere, but my question is genuine and honest.
edit:
Corrected image on reflectance, as our current assumptions require a constant reflection. It is the incident angle that changes the values.
-
Paul March,
In one of your EagleWorks slides you had a proposal to use an L-3 communications industrial magnetron to perform a 100kW test into a frustum. Based on this actually talked to L-3 communications industrial magnetron division and was surprised they had no idea what I was talking about but were interested in the magnetron application. I sent them various information pertaining to the EM Drive/Q-Thruster i.e. firing the RF at resonance freq in a copper frustum. They indicated they had a pre-existing test set up that could easily do 930MHz, 100kW and could even do >1MW micropulses with solenoid, waveguide launcher and isolator (waterload to absorb RF energy) and sent various pictures/diagrams. Concept was to attach a "thruster" after the isolator but aim to have an impedance match / Z-match choke hole with a Faraday cage around the whole thing. We came up with the idea of firing a water cooled thruster into the ground and seeing if we could make the scale weight increase. Frequency had to be 930MHz, various COMSOL runs were done at 930MHz, it has been a while but I believe the first run was going to be TM010. L-3 was to send me dimensions (I used the Travellers spreadsheet to come up with some rough dimensions to confirm) but then they stopped emailing me after sending pictures, but not dimensions of the COMSOL runs. Do you know if NASA is now working with them to do the test (often asked them to talk to EW if possible)? I don't want to bug L-3 but sad that after all that excitement it seemed to come to a halt (had some local fab shops interested in doing the copper frustrum and paying for the experiment, was going to have my younger brother do this as his final electrical engineering project). Don't care either way, but I feel that we had a great experiment lined up and would love to know if anyone is still pushing this!?? I was going to put some coin into using local fab shops to come up with the frustrum and cooling mechanism and rent that setup. Yes the experience was not going to be in a vacuum but the hope was that we could generate some data above experimental measurement error tolerances. Regardless, just want to see if happen (and know what happens!).
-
The contours on the small end are clearly not fine enough, the contours are not even uniformly symmetric around the axis of axysymmetry.
One must be very careful with these numerical solutions, particularly when using "automatic meshing".
These FEKO results shown for TM212 are not as good as the COMSOL FEA analysis done at NASA.
I do not think that COMSOL is all that great either (I particularly dislike the fact that COMSOL does not appear to have a theoretical manual, it just has users manuals), it is not on the same class as ABAQUS or ADINA.
These meshes are too coarse, the contour boundaries are not smooth, being polygonal, and showing some artifacts, particularly when looking at details of the solution... The higher the m, n and p, the finer mesh one needs.
The asymmetry in the small end is because I have modeled and am simulating the 13.5mm loop antenna along the side wall. Adding it to the simulation decreases volume thereby increasing the resonant frequency so that what COMSOL returned at 1.9371Ghz will be different from what FEKO returns. I expect perfect resonance is a little higher than 1.9371Ghz in FEKO as the antenna is taken into consideration. I do not believe NASA modeled the antenna in its COMSOL simulations. If I switched to a generic waveguide excitation, the resonant patterns would perfectly match. In this way, modeling the antenna shape, size, and location along with the frustum is a more accurate representation of the system than just using a waveguide excitation centered on one of the endplates.
-
......questions to why i consider this a "complex system". If momentum changes in a non linear way, depending on the "incidence angle" and on "frequency change" then it is damn hard to track the exact values...
OK, yes complex in that sense, there are yet unresolved aspects about this for example the Abraham/Minkowski paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%E2%80%93Minkowski_controversy. Regardless of my opinion about this controversy, the fact that this is still a controversy where different scientists still disagree, shows the complexity of electromagnetic waves, photons and material interaction. ;) Copper is not a dielectric, which is the focus of this controversy, but the issue of precisely the nature of the electromagnetic momentum within the skin depth of copper (or the London penetration depth in a superconductor) is complex (in that sense ;) ).
-
To cut to the chase:
However there IS still a real impulse force being generated in these in-vacuum runs that is riding on all the thermally induced TP cg shifts.
How do we know any of this? Why should we trust any of the thrust numbers in the paper?
as58:
Short answer, you don't have to believe anything we reported. However if you look at the body of evidence accumulating from all sources including the first EW AIAA paper and the EW Dec 2014 in-vacuum testing I reported here at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, I think most folks would consider that there is a lot of smoke surrounding this phenomenon. And where there is smoke, hopefully their is a fire to engineer. My next goal is to build another 2.45 GHz copper frustum EM-drive, but this time with spherical endcaps and much better drive antenna frequency tuning controls to see if I can evoke the EM-drive fire in a much more convincing way than we have to date. What do you plan to do?
Best, Paul M.
-
Paul March,
In one of your EagleWorks slides you had a proposal to use an L-3 communications industrial magnetron to perform a 100kW test into a frustum. Based on this actually talked to L-3 communications industrial magnetron division and was surprised they had no idea what I was talking about but were interested in the magnetron application. I sent them various information pertaining to the EM Drive/Q-Thruster i.e. firing the RF at resonance freq in a copper frustum. They indicated they had a pre-existing test set up that could easily do 930MHz, 100kW and could even do >1MW micropulses with solenoid, waveguide launcher and isolator (waterload to absorb RF energy) and sent various pictures/diagrams. Concept was to attach a "thruster" after the isolator but aim to have an impedance match / Z-match choke hole with a Faraday cage around the whole thing. We came up with the idea of firing a water cooled thruster into the ground and seeing if we could make the scale weight increase. Frequency had to be 930MHz, various COMSOL runs were done at 930MHz, it has been a while but I believe the first run was going to be TM010. L-3 was to send me dimensions (I used the Travellers spreadsheet to come up with some rough dimensions to confirm) but then they stopped emailing me after sending pictures, but not dimensions of the COMSOL runs. Do you know if NASA is now working with them to do the test (often asked them to talk to EW if possible)? I don't want to bug L-3 but sad that after all that excitement it seemed to come to a halt (had some local fab shops interested in doing the copper frustrum and paying for the experiment, was going to have my younger brother do this as his final electrical engineering project). Don't care either way, but I feel that we had a great experiment lined up and would love to know if anyone is still pushing this!?? I was going to put some coin into using local fab shops to come up with the frustrum and cooling mechanism and rent that setup. Yes the experience was not going to be in a vacuum but the hope was that we could generate some data above experimental measurement error tolerances. Regardless, just want to see if happen (and know what happens!).
Craig:
I'm impressed! However if L-3 Com approached Dr.. White about this 100kW Q-Thruster topic, he never told me about it. However I hope you are right in that someone has picked up this 100kW ball that could have produced over a 1,200 Newtons running at its TM010, 929 MHz resonance mode of the EW copper frustum while pumping in 100kW of RF power. Provided of course IF Sonny's QV conjecture was fully encapsulated in Dr. White's 2015 COMSOL/QV Plasma code simulations, see below, and IF it is based in reality, which is still TBD.
BTW, the time steps along the x-axis in these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code Copper Frustum thruster simulations is in picoseconds or 1x10^-12 seconds.
Best, Paul M.
-
as58:
Short answer, you don't have to believe anything we reported. However if you look at he body of evidence accumulating from all sources including the first EW AIAA paper and the EW Dec 2014 in-vacuum testing I reported here at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, I think most folks would consider that there is a lot of smoke surrounding this phenomenon. And where there is smoke, hopefully their is a fire to engineer. My next goal is to build another 2.45 GHz copper frustum EM-drive, but this time with spherical endcaps and much better drive antenna frequency tuning controls to see if I can evoke the EM-drive fire in a much more convincing way that we have to date. What do you plan to do?
Best, Paul M.
To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I'm not suggesting that you a misreporting what you have seen. What I am saying is that I do not think that the presented experimental data shows evidence of thrust. I find the characterisation of measurements badly lacking so that it is not possible to separate thermal effects from any possible thrust.
As to what I'm planning to do: Nothing much, I'll wait for more results.
-
...
The mesh of the vacuum on the slot side was specified to be inside>length based>7 mm (arbitrarily chosen) and the slot side cavity was surface>length based > 7 mm (also arbitrary) which resulted in ~225,000 tetrahedra.
...
Now, that's a fine mesh ;)
How long does it take for this model to run ?
:) Took my 32 cores ~10 min
zellerium, just a quick time out to note that the effort you have put into all of this is just phenomenal. Thank you!
-
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
JPP means the Journal of Propulsion and Power, right? I do not think the discussion is satisfactory. In particular, why does the measurement device respond so much faster to calibration impulses? And if there are significant non-linearities, how can you justify you measurement protocol, which (as far as I understand) _assumes_ linear superposition of thrust and thermal signal?
Yeah, not looking good to me either. I don't see any model of how it "blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time", nor any empirical indication. What I see is that the response time for all of the calibration pulses is very consistently ~4 seconds at multiple positions of the pendulum, both before and after heating, including in the null test where the pendulum was still highly displaced by the thermal effects when they applied the second calibration pulse.
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.
Sort of how a slightly off freq magnetron will be pulled into a freq lock with a resonant load that has a higher Q than that of the magnetron even though the high Q load has a different resonant freq to the magnetron. Give them time and they will work it out and lock to each other.
May also be related to the force bandwidth being much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
Point is that EmDrives do generate force but please do not think of that force as being like any force you have ever experienced before. It has very different characterists.
So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
Phil:
Your above explanation does cover some of what is going on in the slower than expected build up in the force profile for these fall 2015 in-vacuum EW Lab data runs, but IMO not all. First off through 20/20 hindsight it became apparent we picked the worst possible way from a thermal interaction viewpoint to integrate the PLL box and RF amp & its ~5kg heat-sink with the copper frustum. We would have been much better off to have mounted the RF amp and heat-sink at right angles to the frustum's Z-axis thrust axis so their thermally driven expansions and contractions did not interact with the torque pendulum in the very detrimental way they did where we ran them for this fall 2015 test series. My bad! If I had followed the right angle mounting approach the force plots would be much more prompt as was shown in figure 12 in the EW Journal of Propulsion and Power report where the RF amp and heat-sink were used as the torque pendulum's counter mass at the other end of the TP and were their major thermal expansion axis was mounted at right angles to the frustum's thrust axis.
BTW, the EW torque pendulum (TP) was always balanced with one end slightly down relative to the other end, so that it would have a gravity gradient induced preference to home on a zero force point. Otherwise the TP's long-term zero-thrust baseline drift wandered all over the place in a chaotic manner that made repetitive testing near impossible. This TP baseline homing when combined with the center of gravity shifts induced in the TP by my bad integration design choice for the ICFTA is another reason why these in-vacuum force plots look so ugly. However there IS still a real impulse force being generated in these in-vacuum runs that is riding on all the thermally induced TP zero-thrust cg-baseline shifts. Next time around though with the use of spherical endcaps in the frustums, we shouldn't have to worry so much about these thermal issues if we can match or better your TE013 ~8-milli-Newton thruster performance.
Best, and get well soonest.
Paul M.
Paul,
What I do know is even with my 8,000 Q frustum, if the freq was off even a few kHz, the frustum would sit there and "fart around" maybe generating a force or maybe not.
That was when I mapped the force bandwidth and found it was very much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
It was also why I developed the technique to tune for min reflected power at low power, a watt or so, then step it up to 10 watts and recheck lowest reflected power and then quickly kick the power to 100 watts and recheck again. Each time trying to do the tuning check in less than 10 sec. Then let everything cool down and do another quick check, another cool down and do the money shot for weight change on the scale.
I found that not doing this process could still generate a weight change on the scale but not immediately. However if I did the tuning correctly, force generation seemed to be immediate.
Which says that even though all I had was the digital readout on my scale, I could still see a not properly tuned EmDrive struggle to generate Force.
Which I believe fits with what EW saw and what Roger saw. Static force generation may not be immediate but the EmDrive may still be able to lock onto a not perfect tune and still generate Force but not immediately.
So, once again, you need a force locked loop, not a phase locked loop (and NOT the frequency locked loop you are currently chasing). The difference is a fairly trivial modification to the "magic happens inside" box you have shown ad nauseum in your "schematics".
-
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
-
......questions to why i consider this a "complex system". If momentum changes in a non linear way, depending on the "incidence angle" and on "frequency change" then it is damn hard to track the exact values...
OK, yes complex in that sense, there are yet unresolved aspects about this for example the Abraham/Minkowski paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%E2%80%93Minkowski_controversy. Regardless of my opinion about this controversy, the fact that this is still a controversy where different scientists still disagree, shows the complexity of electromagnetic waves, photons and material interaction. ;) Copper is not a dielectric, which is the focus of this controversy, but the issue of precisely the nature of the electromagnetic momentum within the skin depth of copper (or the London penetration depth in a superconductor) is complex (in that sense ;) ).
I'm asking for more insight on the relation between momentum and reflectance, because it would have profound implications :
If i may simplify the situation a bit to explain what was perhaps a bit too poorly elaborated :
I recall the discussions about the tennis balls bouncing back and forth in a huge frustum space station.
As long you consider the reflectance of the walls to be uniform in every direction, it is only the angle of incidence that will determine the size of the momentum. And in the end, when you add up all bounces, the final sum of all forces will be zero. That much I understood...
But I see a problem if the reflectance of the walls would vary according the direction you throw the balls. It would mean that for the direction (small end > big end) the transfer of momentum/force would be smaller then what the angle of incidence would predict.
So, it puzzles me on how the relation is then, between the reflectance and the momentum transfer ?
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
-
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
$10,000 us give or take. And this is doing most mechanical work yourself. High precision build and test could multiply 10 fold. This is not a cheap endeavor...I know personally.
-
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
$10,000 us give or take. And this is doing most mechanical work yourself. High precision build and test could multiply 10 fold. This is not a cheap endeavor...I know personally.
SSI would also be interested in contributing towards an ultra-high-power build (i.e., multi kilowatt), provided it was competently and safely executed. PM me.
-
zellerium, just a quick time out to note that the effort you have put into all of this is just phenomenal. Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words, but my effort pales in comparison to several of the contributors on this forum who we are all greatly thankful for :)
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
Well if you go "proper" enough, you don't want the high power. Meaning, if you put it on a satellite you couldn't afford the mass for a high power experiment unless you convince some one like Space Systems Loral to weave your experiment into their Comms Sat.
Lets say we can send a 10 kg 6U like Cannae into LEO for 545,000.
If we go for a rotational demonstration, meaning our EM Drive is on the end of our 6U and thrusting perpendicularly, and we get .4 N/kW at a .1 meter offset from the CG, our angular acceleration would be
alpha = tau/I = .04 Nm/(m0/12(w^2+d^2)) = 1/3 rad/s^2
if we get 600 seconds of constant acceleration then we could get up to ~1/2 rotation per second!
(assuming a constant mass distribution, and no outside perturbations)
That seems a little too good to be true, maybe I goofed or we're being generous with the N/kW...
OR maybe 1 kW is completely unnecessary and we should opt for less power.
I don't think I've ever seen a 1 kW amp under 5 kg but I haven't seen that many...
We'll assume 20% mass for batteries and 20% for structure which only leaves us 6 kg. Assuming we can get an amp under 3 kg leaves us 2 kg for the frustum/waveguides/electronic frequency tracking etc and then we've got 1 kg left for thermal and accessories.
So a 6U sounds a bit cramped, but definitely possible if we lower the power. And we could get it there for 545k.
I don't know how long it would take to design and build, maybe 1-2 years? My guess on parts would be 400-500k, labor maybe 300k...
So I think I could do it for ~1.5 Million USD. Anyone want to fund me?
On second thought, I think we'd be better off using the money for a higher power ground test. Spend a few hundred thousand on a MW amp, beam it via antenna to a robust little frustum surrounded by a sealed container full of phase change materials to keep it from melting... At least that way we get to keep the amp when we're finished.
-
The contours on the small end are clearly not fine enough, the contours are not even uniformly symmetric around the axis of axysymmetry.
One must be very careful with these numerical solutions, particularly when using "automatic meshing".
These FEKO results shown for TM212 are not as good as the COMSOL FEA analysis done at NASA.
I do not think that COMSOL is all that great either (I particularly dislike the fact that COMSOL does not appear to have a theoretical manual, it just has users manuals), it is not on the same class as ABAQUS or ADINA.
These meshes are too coarse, the contour boundaries are not smooth, being polygonal, and showing some artifacts, particularly when looking at details of the solution... The higher the m, n and p, the finer mesh one needs.
The asymmetry in the small end is because I have modeled and am simulating the 13.5mm loop antenna along the side wall. Adding it to the simulation decreases volume thereby increasing the resonant frequency so that what COMSOL returned at 1.9371Ghz will be different from what FEKO returns. I expect perfect resonance is a little higher than 1.9371Ghz in FEKO as the antenna is taken into consideration. I do not believe NASA modeled the antenna in its COMSOL simulations. If I switched to a generic waveguide excitation, the resonant patterns would perfectly match. In this way, modeling the antenna shape, size, and location along with the frustum is a more accurate representation of the system than just using a waveguide excitation centered on one of the endplates.
Convergence to the correct solution of Maxwell's equation is not guaranteed even for a very fine mesh.
Actually the Neumann Boundary Conditions themselves depend on the gradient of the function and the gradient is very sensitive to the coarseness of the mesh. There are also distortion issues with finite meshes and other issues, too long to write about...
Modeling an asymmetrically placed antenna demands a finer mesh. The greater the gradients in your problem, the finer mesh you need.
The way to assess convergence is ... by performing a convergence study. If you perform a convergence study you have to multiply the number of nodes in each dimension by a multiple factor.
A single finite mesh cannot be used, in any case, to asses that the mesh is fine enough. Three points define a parabola, 2 define a line, and with one point...we have no convergence information.
-
......questions to why i consider this a "complex system". If momentum changes in a non linear way, depending on the "incidence angle" and on "frequency change" then it is damn hard to track the exact values...
OK, yes complex in that sense, there are yet unresolved aspects about this for example the Abraham/Minkowski paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%E2%80%93Minkowski_controversy. Regardless of my opinion about this controversy, the fact that this is still a controversy where different scientists still disagree, shows the complexity of electromagnetic waves, photons and material interaction. ;) Copper is not a dielectric, which is the focus of this controversy, but the issue of precisely the nature of the electromagnetic momentum within the skin depth of copper (or the London penetration depth in a superconductor) is complex (in that sense ;) ).
I'm asking for more insight on the relation between momentum and reflectance, because it would have profound implications :
If i may simplify the situation a bit to explain what was perhaps a bit too poorly elaborated :
I recall the discussions about the tennis balls bouncing back and forth in a huge frustum space station.
As long you consider the reflectance of the walls to be uniform in every direction, it is only the angle of incidence that will determine the size of the momentum. And in the end, when you add up all bounces, the final sum of all forces will be zero. That much I understood...
But I see a problem if the reflectance of the walls would vary according the direction you throw the balls. It would mean that for the direction (small end > big end) the transfer of momentum/force would be smaller then what the angle of incidence would predict.
So, it puzzles me on how the relation is then, between the reflectance and the momentum transfer ?
To put it simply, physics as we know it requires a force to THROW THE BALL! If you're in a funnel shaped copper cavity headed towards the moon, and you throw a tennis ball towards the moon, you and your cavity are accelerated away from the moon due to the energy required to THROW THE BALL. The tennis ball can then hit a steel plate, a mattress, or glance off the walls. It doesn't matter. When all of the energy has dissipated and the ball has come to rest, the net result is zero gain in momentum. At the most basic level, this is the fundamental issue with the Emdrive, and the issue every one here is trying to explain.
EDIT: Of course, an Emdrive is constantly stuffing more and more tennis balls into your copper cavity, and insisting that you throw them in a collimated fashion so that as one tennis ball is leaving your hand, the last one you threw is just exactly bouncing off the wall of your choice (hence all of the discussion about modes and Q). The more tennis balls you can deal with, the greater the Q. The end result is the same. You're going nowhere at a great rate, surrounded by tennis balls. Unless, of course, current physics is incomplete. And I'm sure it is ;)
-
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
$10,000 us give or take. And this is doing most mechanical work yourself. High precision build and test could multiply 10 fold. This is not a cheap endeavor...I know personally.
Or like me build several drives, two labs and three test stands and now I'm building a third EM and vibration isolated lab. It adds up. I'm about to double the +20k I already have into this already as this next phase will run around 20k with me doing most of the grunt work, insulating, wiring, even roofing and pouring the cement. While this is nowhere to a bare bone minimal entry 500K budget this deserves to start up I hope it can provide solid data and a good DYI lab and test bed for some of the drives I have planned.
Shell
-
Could someone tell me approximate cost of proper high powered build so the tests could be done even in high power(kilowatt) range. Reason I'm asking this is because I may have possibility to financially back the build.
$10,000 us give or take. And this is doing most mechanical work yourself. High precision build and test could multiply 10 fold. This is not a cheap endeavor...I know personally.
Or like me build several drives, two labs and three test stands and now I'm building a third EM and vibration isolated lab. It adds up. I'm about to double the +20k I already have into this already as this next phase will run around 20k with me doing most of the grunt work, insulating, wiring, even roofing and pouring the cement. While this is nowhere to a bare bone minimal entry 500K budget this deserves to start up I hope it can provide solid data and a good DYI lab and test bed for some of the drives I have planned.
Shell
Yep, I figured about $10K but I outsourced nothing and had the tools to do metalworking. My test stand was very simple and biggest expense was Lds. Software was basic and I/o to laptop was as I could afford. However, the best lessons learned come from making due with minimal resources.
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
-
A recent article from Astronomy.com:
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/11/emdrive-thruster-cleared-first-hurdle
-
To put it simply, physics as we know it requires a force to THROW THE BALL! If you're in a funnel shaped copper cavity headed towards the moon, and you throw a tennis ball towards the moon, you and your cavity are accelerated away from the moon due to the energy required to THROW THE BALL. The tennis ball can then hit a steel plate, a mattress, or glance off the walls. It doesn't matter. When all of the energy has dissipated and the ball has come to rest, the net result is zero gain in momentum. At the most basic level, this is the fundamental issue with the Emdrive, and the issue every one here is trying to explain.
EDIT: Of course, an Emdrive is constantly stuffing more and more tennis balls into your copper cavity, and insisting that you throw them in a collimated fashion so that as one tennis ball is leaving your hand, the last one you threw is just exactly bouncing off the wall of your choice (hence all of the discussion about modes and Q). The more tennis balls you can deal with, the greater the Q. The end result is the same. You're going nowhere at a great rate, surrounded by tennis balls. Unless, of course, current physics is incomplete. And I'm sure it is ;)
This is only the issue if you think photons act like tennis balls and ignore the fact that copper can absorb EM waves as heat, based on the fact that it cannot absorb tennis balls.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
One issue is NASA measured static force generation big to small with a dielectric at the small end and small to big when the dielectric was not used.
Roger Shawyer, in 2002 and in 2006 also measured static force being generated in non dielectric frustums small to big as attached.
Would like to see any of these theories explain the small to big non dielectric static force generation that has been measured by NASA and Roger.
For sure, any theory needs to be able to explain ALL the measured data.
Or the systemic and/or experimental error that lead to the data in question....
I harp on this because even though you continue to point to Shawyer's past claimed results, there is very little in the way of published design detail of either the frustums or experimental equipment and environment, he used.
It makes the claims sound a great deal more like hearsay, than the result of real experimental data... And I am not saying that there was not data, just that it does not seem to be available for critical examination.
Have you read both of Roger's recently posted engineering test reports for the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives as attached?
As an engineer, there are more than enough data to replicate both the EmDrives and the fairly simple static force measurement systems. Here Roger had an advantage over EW as the force was 100s of times greater than the 100uN EW had to deal with.
I see the 2 test reports as equivalent to the earlier EW in air test report.
Phil, maybe better to ask another engineer if those documents provide enough information to reproduce Shawyer's work on its own... Both the build itself and experimental controls.
I am not an engineer, and my only real personal interest has been theoretical physics. Still it seems to me that if you believe those documents or really any of those that predate them, provide sufficient information to actually recreate Shawyer's work, without a long period of trial and error of your own.., you have to be reading/working from some special knowledge base not included in the published work.
How many DIY experimenters and two or three institutional labs have been playing with this for the last few years, and how many of those have each tried their own interpretation of what should work, with varying degrees of success or failure. A fact that in itself demonstrates just how vague, much.., if not all of what Shawyer has shared publicly has been.
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
I like practical too .. Your power dissipation differential is like a rocket motor ... make sense.
But the underlying cause is still a time rate differential. As explained previously, matter exists more and falls spontaneously toward a slower rate of time, as in gravity. This is because slower time and longer seconds means/requires larger space to keep c ratio constant. Therefore, the object loses power as it falls into larger space, making this a typical entropic/spontaneous event.
First step is to create a time rate differential so that, second step, object falls spontaneously across the differential. We never act directly on objects. We exchange and transfer time frames (pilot waves) and change power. A blue photon bouncing off (non-elastic collision) will lose power, since the same Planck content h is now packaged into the longer time period of a redder photon. The Planck h content is the same; only power has changed by virtue of a longer time package (period) or, equivalently, a longer wavelength (space). All that we put on paper is one order over integrated in time, which is why the rate of time is nowhere to be found. Energy or mass means nothing real unless we specify its space or time container, i.e. its power. GR spirit without the map.
New physics or new philosophy? or, just nothing new?
-
So, once again, you need a force locked loop, not a phase locked loop (and NOT the frequency locked loop you are currently chasing). The difference is a fairly trivial modification to the "magic happens inside" box you have shown ad nauseum in your "schematics".
EW in the 1st 2 papers used a phase locked loop via a 2nd sense antenna. I believe they took my advise and have developed a reflected power freq tracker that dithers the freq to find lowest reflected power.
I agree as my freq tracker is not a phase locked loop, but 1st you need to tune to lowest reflected power or you will never get to a Force locked loop.
For my rotary test rig, the freq tuner will work from.
1) lowest reflected power.
2) highest force for static testing
3) highest acceleration for dynamic testing.
Updated freq tracker overview attached.
-
Phil, maybe better to ask another engineer if those documents provide enough information to reproduce Shawyer's work on its own... Both the build itself and experimental controls.
I am not an engineer, and my only real personal interest has been theoretical physics. Still it seems to me that if you believe those documents or really any of those that predate them, provide sufficient information to actually recreate Shawyer's work, without a long period of trial and error of your own.., you have to be reading/working from some special knowledge base not included in the published work.
How many DIY experimenters and two or three institutional labs have been playing with this for the last few years, and how many of those have each tried their own interpretation of what should work, with varying degrees of success or failure. A fact that in itself demonstrates just how vague, much.., if not all of what Shawyer has shared publicly has been.
I have no special information. What I know from Roger's bread crumbs to me has been shared here. Put those breadcrumbs together with his latest 2 reports and building an EmDrive is not hard.
I do know that when Dave followed Roger's build process and moved from a copper mesh frustum with almost no force generation to a solid copper frustum that was highly polished, he measured 18.4mN of force generation.
What I do know, from what I have read, is almost no EmDrive builder follows Roger's lead, well at 1st. Then with experience as their guide, they build following Roger's lead.
Paul has shared he is building a non dielectric, spherical end plate frustum. Which is what Roger has advised he did with the Demonstrator and Flight Thruster builds and what I have done. For my build Roger has predicted, if I do the build to a very high quality, as I have done by using an external fabricator, that my Qu should be around 88k and my specific force around 500mN/kW. Late 1st qtr 2017, I will know if that is the result.
So it seems there is a build process to go through, that has so far, as far as I have seen, resulted in those builds that follow Roger's build guidelines generating force and those that do not, do not generate force.
You see I'm not a big fan of reinventing the wheel because it can be reinvented. Others opinion on that may vary.
-
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
I like practical too .. Your power dissipation differential is like a rocket motor ... make sense.
But the underlying cause is still a time rate differential. As explained previously, matter exists more and falls spontaneously toward a slower rate of time, as in gravity. This is because slower time and longer seconds means/requires larger space to keep c ratio constant. Therefore, the object loses power as it falls into larger space, making this a typical entropic/spontaneous event.
First step is to create a time rate differential so that, second step, object falls spontaneously across the differential. We never act directly on objects. We exchange and transfer time frames (pilot waves) and change power. A blue photon bouncing off (non-elastic collision) will lose power, since the same Planck content h is now packaged into the longer time period of a redder photon. The Planck h content is the same; only power has changed by virtue of a longer time package (period) or, equivalently, a longer wavelength (space). All that we put on paper is one order over integrated in time, which is why the rate of time is nowhere to be found. Energy or mass means nothing real unless we specify its space or time container, i.e. its power. GR spirit without the map.
New physics or new philosophy? or, just nothing new?
I use the decay time as the reference, not the clock time, but yes that is the correct physics. The problem with the red shift/blue shift of photons is that; in order for the resonant frequency to remain constant, the orthogonal components of that frequency or wavelength must vary with the geometry of the frustum.
For a TE012 or 013 mode...
1. The radial wavelength is longer toward the small end and shorter toward the big end.
2. The zenith wavelength is longer toward the big end and shorter toward the small end.
3. The sum of the squares of the two frequencies at each end is the square of the resonant frequency, and supposedly constant.
So while one wave is red shifting, the other wave is blue shifting, in the same direction! It is only when I add asymmetrical power dissipation to the equation, that this symmetry is broken and there are losses that "do work" on the frustum. Dispersion with a constant resonant mode alone will not do it since there is no "work" being done on the copper. Energy must be dissipated to get out of the cavity. As long as the energy persists in the cavity, there can't be any thrust. By "out of the cavity" I mean "into the copper", and then isotropically radiated as heat.
I think the conservation of energy issue will be resolved because the metal gains heat and entropy increases. It will take more energy to push a hot frustum than a cold one.
-
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
For me, as an engineer that builds EmDrives by applying Roger's theory equations, it is not complex at all. I understand the physics, as explained by Roger, and when applied to the real world, see it generate the predicted results.
As for Q * power scaling linear with force generation, that is just accelerator physics as is the relationship between Q and Rs and temp and freq. Of course in the real world not everything scales linear but as I see it, the vast majority of the effects do scale linear because if not there would not be accelerator cavities with Q 5x10^11.
So for sure it will not be a simple build to get a high performance room temp cavity to work well when immersed in LN2, but doing so it not something that has never been done before and thankfully Google is really good at digging out build data.
With a Cu 300K (room temp) Rs of around 8,000uOhm and a 77K Rs of around 15uOhm, there is more than ample margin to experimentally measure both the resultant Qu from doing forward power 1x Tc rise time calcs and doing force generation.
It then gets very exciting and interesting to do real time Q measurements with a non accelerating and accelerating thruster to see if the Q drops during acceleration and then to measure the energy representative of the Q drop which has exited the cavity and is doing work to accelerate the EmDrive.
That should be VERY interesting data as only a small increase in angular velocity on a rotary test rig should be sufficient to measure gained KE vs cavity energy drop from dropped Q.
More data will be added by reducing Rf amp power to become low enough to maintain constant velocity as against rotary test rig static and dynamic air resistance load and again record what happens to cavity Q as power is varied up and down around that constant velocity point.
Interesting times ahead.
And then again...,
There is a difference between Shawyer's theory and the formulas he and it seems you use to describe and predict, the design and performance of an EmDrive. It has always seemed to me that Shawyer's evolution of the EmDrive has been based on an engineering based trial and error. Thus his math based formulas also seem closer to having been derived from the engineering experience.., trial and error...
Beyond that I remind you again that any attempt to use how the efficiency of particle accelerators scales is fatally flawed in that the EmDrives being publicly discussed operate at very different frequencies and incorporate very different technologies. That being the case a there is a far greater burden on you to explain just why what is seen in the case of an accelerator, might apply in the case of a copper box filled with microwaves....
Roger's EmDrive theory was developed by a group of UK academics and aerospace experts, funded by some of the money provided by the UK gov. The whole program, theory development, creation of the EmDrives, test rigs and review of the test data was handled by a UK MOD select panel of experts.
BTW non SC accelerator cavities are copper boxes filled with microwaves. If you think accelerator cavity theory doesn't apply to EmDrive cavities, please review this data and point out what does not apply:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency#Physics_of_SRF_cavities
The claim that, Roger's EmDrive theory was developed by a group of UK academics and aerospace experts,..., seems hollow when the details of development remain hidden, to the extent that very knowledgeable persons with applicable backgrounds, don't see what you have come to believe is obvious. Point to a comprehensive peer reviewed theory paper, that can be reviewed and confirmed or critiqued.
On the dissimilarity between an EmDrive and particle accelerators, the only particles anyone has suggested an EmDrive accelerates are virtual... And particle accelerators are not boxes in the same sense that an EmDrive is. Most of your wiki reference was focused on super conducting particle accelerators, not the simple copper versions.... At least as public information superconductor EmDrives are yet to be a functional reality.
My criticism of your using superconducting accelerators as a proof of how the thrust of a superconducting EmDrive scales, has been that it is an assumption, that you present as a priori. The similarities may be used as a guide but not as a matter of fact, until it has been tested and proven. They are not identical systems and there are significant disimilarities.
Phil, before we get anywhere near that point, the point where we can talk about how thrust scales with design or RF power, someone needs to do what EW did when they demonstrated reproducible thrust over a series of tests. We just need that reproducible thrust to be a bit more significant, so it cannot be confused with systemic and/or measurement error.
It appears that some consensus is developing, among the main players, builders and those providing design support, that is beginning to drive design in a relatively common direction. A direction where higher thrusts seem promising. But we are not there yet, at least not in publicly documented design detail and experimental data.
One more thing... If you say something often enough or even tell yourself something long enough, it begins to take on a life of its own, independent of whether it has been proven. For science to progress and evolve, it is important to understand the line that separates what is known, as in has been proven, and what we believe...
The engineers I think have an advantage there, so long as they don't become caught up in theory, and forget they are engineers. I believe the engineers in us adapt better. What we know to be true, evolves far more easily than what we believe ....
I do tend to rant and run on....
Keep in mind I am a believer or more accurately have become a believer, but I also have a interest in maintaining a clear distinction between what is known and what remains theory or even a reasoned and logical projection.., of what we believe.
-
The claim that, Roger's EmDrive theory was developed by a group of UK academics and aerospace experts,..., seems hollow when the details of development remain hidden, to the extent that very knowledgeable persons with applicable backgrounds, don't see what you have come to believe is obvious. Point to a comprehensive peer reviewed theory paper, that can be reviewed and confirmed or critiqued.
If you read the documents and statements made by Roger, it is very clear how the theory development happened. As part of the requirements of the 1st round of funding, both experimental results and theory had to be developed and approved by the UK MOD select panel.
Please also consider, the theory development group had a working EmDrive to study, poke and prod. Maybe ask yourself what would be the theory development process if you and others, in a gov funded theory development group, had a working EmDrive to base your theory development on?
I do realise that I'm probably the only one who understand and accepts Roger's theory. I have no issue with that as I know that given time, the other theories will fall by the way side as they fail to explain and describe ALL the experimental data, such as
1) Static force being measured small to big and Dynamic force being measured big to small.
2) Static force reversal when there is or not a dielectric at the small end.
This data is real and has been measured by Roger and confirmed by EW. Well EW confirmed the non dielectric static force direction small to big on 2 frustums and on 2 very different test rigs.
So the data mounts, the hill that other theories needs to climb gets steeper and life get interesting.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
-
I think the conservation of energy issue will be resolved because the metal gains heat and entropy increases. It will take more energy to push a hot frustum than a cold one.
Roger has told me he has data supporting the cavity Q drops during acceleration and that the cavity momentum drop represents the accelerating frustum's gained momentum. Have asked him to released the data, that is if it is outside any NDA restrictions. He said he will see it that is possible.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
-
Washington Post Article re. the Papers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/22/this-rocket-engine-breaks-a-law-of-physics-but-a-nasa-test-says-it-works-anyway/
-
So, when the cubesat EM-drive is launched, can I assume it will get its own thread somewhere other than the new physics section? Or at least a link from the live event section or space science section? Because in the new physics section, there's a lot of endless debate to trudge through to find the grains of information. It would be nice to separate the discussions from updates. And naturally, there's no reason to wait for the launch to do this.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
I already referenced it to you in a post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612054#msg1612054) regarding your new article. Here it is again:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum" (http://www.bis-space.com/eshop/products-page-2/magazines/jbis/jbis-2016/jbis-vol-69-no-05-may-2016/), JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
It would be a good thing we discuss the content of this paper here :)
-
......
I'm asking for more insight on the relation between momentum and reflectance, because it would have profound implications :
If i may simplify the situation a bit to explain what was perhaps a bit too poorly elaborated :
I recall the discussions about the tennis balls bouncing back and forth in a huge frustum space station.
As long you consider the reflectance of the walls to be uniform in every direction, it is only the angle of incidence that will determine the size of the momentum. And in the end, when you add up all bounces, the final sum of all forces will be zero. That much I understood...
But I see a problem if the reflectance of the walls would vary according the direction you throw the balls. It would mean that for the direction (small end > big end) the transfer of momentum/force would be smaller then what the angle of incidence would predict.
So, it puzzles me on how the relation is then, between the reflectance and the momentum transfer ?
To put it simply, physics as we know it requires a force to THROW THE BALL! If you're in a funnel shaped copper cavity headed towards the moon, and you throw a tennis ball towards the moon, you and your cavity are accelerated away from the moon due to the energy required to THROW THE BALL. The tennis ball can then hit a steel plate, a mattress, or glance off the walls. It doesn't matter. When all of the energy has dissipated and the ball has come to rest, the net result is zero gain in momentum. At the most basic level, this is the fundamental issue with the Emdrive, and the issue every one here is trying to explain.
EDIT: Of course, an Emdrive is constantly stuffing more and more tennis balls into your copper cavity, and insisting that you throw them in a collimated fashion so that as one tennis ball is leaving your hand, the last one you threw is just exactly bouncing off the wall of your choice (hence all of the discussion about modes and Q). The more tennis balls you can deal with, the greater the Q. The end result is the same. You're going nowhere at a great rate, surrounded by tennis balls. Unless, of course, current physics is incomplete. And I'm sure it is ;)
Sigh.. I knew this would happen the moment I started writing about tennis balls...
I thought it would be more clear the tennis ball analogy is rather flawed, but apparently, it isn't... :-[
It is not about the total sum of all the action/reactions I'm writing about, but I'm trying to get the understanding about reflection right.
Reflection is the most essential feature/process of what happens inside an EMdrive.
If you take 1 complete cycle, going from big end to small en and back, the total sum of the reflectance from small to big end is < then the total sum, especially when you consider it to be a wave, instead of a particle.
The problem with particles is that we associate the too much with real life observations where hard kinetic impacts have an apparent linear relation with the angle of incidence.
I'm not trying to explain the EMdrive with this, I don't have a comprehensive theory. I only have questions.
In this case about reflection and its relation with force/momentum transfer, because it is the most essential part of what happens inside an EMdrive.
The non linearity of reflection is really counter-intuitive and understanding it "might" give a clue to why an EMdrive functions. (IF it really functions).
My idea is that - IF the EMdrive does indeed work - we need to see and rethink what misconceptions we have, because maybe we then can find clues that help solve these apparent conflicts.
The EMdrive (probably) does not violate CoM. The press likes sensation but totally reverses the logic...
The question should be : what did we miss in our understanding of CoM, that doesn't need "new physics", but only a more accurate understanding of what's happening...
This means retracing, step by step, what we know and investigating any of the shortcuts we took for granted for so long...
Because it is a resonance cavity, any minuscule variation can get potentially amplified (Q 100k ? or more) to a point it becomes no longer negligible...
So questions like : what brings us the non-linearity of reflection, or the extraordinary momentum/spin in evanescent waves, become important because they're not really considered in our daily understanding of the world around us.
As far as comprehensive theories goes, I do have a preference for Todd's asymmetric dissipation/attenuation based upon the wave properties of RF waves...It's way above my head how he does it, but it looks like a logical and elegant solution to the apparent CoM/CoE conflict...
-
"frontpage" on National Geographic :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/nasa-impossible-emdrive-physics-peer-review-space-science/
8)
another great article :
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/
skeptical but with a sense of humor. Does make a few good points, though.
f.e. about the relative low sampling rate of the EW results...
It is a something that crossed my mind too.
-
...
An empty closed copper cavity in the shape of a truncated cone and electromagnetically excited at a microwave frequency at kW or less power is now deemed to be a complex system? :o
...
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
While true, when you consider the total system - the PLL with its mixer and filter; the thermal TC of the frustrum, the potential for acoustic vibration resulting from radiation pressure causing frequency spread; in Shawyer's setup, piezoelectric tuning with its feedback filter and the spring system his whole frustrum is mounted on, and the acceleration of all the above, the total system can have lots of poles & zeroes of the transfer function and all those sources of mixing. It could get ugly, even chaotic, but it doesn't have to if constructed and feedback loops filtered accordingly.
It would have been nice if EW had included a graph of frequency, or the VCO control voltage on those thrust plots.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Not even measuring thrust, I would like to see multiple taps, say 6 taps in a 3 mode frustrum at 90 degree (quadrature) separation to measure amplitude and phase as the frustrum accelerates and decelerates to validate motor and generator modes. The amplitude of a slow-traveling standing wave in static, and accelerating conditions.
This would be relatively cheap and simple, and from it thrust (as miniscule as may be from a 10mW signal generator) could be calculated. That part of Shawyer's theory would be validated. I've thought about bouncing a can on a slinky. But why bother. It would just confirm what we know, others would discount it.
But it would be useful, in that it would validate simulations, especially the reduction of an intractable three dimensional accelerating frustrum to a single dimensional model.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
You already know the critical parameters. I hope others will jump in the suggestion bandwagon. Here is mine:
I know there will be a ton of sensors. But besides those, please record a long sequence-shot video (no cut, with ambient sound) of your complete rotary experiment from above, the camera lens pointing downwards along the Z-axis of the rotary test rig, so anyone can later easily plot angular displacement and acceleration solely on the basis of the video. Better, record multiple flux at once, one video from the top and another video with a second camera on a tripod somewhere on the side of the room. Make sure overall lighting is high but without any reflection in camera lenses (digital cameras produce horrible noise under low light conditions).
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
You already know the critical parameters. I hope others will jump in the suggestion bandwagon. Here is mine:
I know there will be a ton of sensors. But besides those, please record a long sequence-shot video (no cut, with ambient sound) of your complete rotary experiment from above, the camera lens pointing downwards along the Z-axis of the rotary test rig, so anyone can later easily plot angular displacement and acceleration solely on the basis of the video. Better, record multiple flux at once, one video from the top and another video with a second camera on a tripod somewhere on the side of the room. Make sure overall lighting is high but without any reflection in camera lenses (digital cameras produce horrible noise under low light conditions).
That is the plan.
2 external cameras as you described plus three thermal cameras on the thruster side and two end plates, a screen video grab with lot of real time nice info, like thruster Q, current, forward & reflected power, Rf amp voltage & current, angular acceleration & velocity, thruster temp, pressure & freq, etc all on a single video feed. Every data source will have at least 1ms resolution and will be recorded for the entire accelerative run, which should be around 20 to 30 minutes.
There will be heaps of data, which will hopefully answer both CofM and accelerative KE CofE as the biggies.
Then it get fun as verifying or not the SPR theory is put under the spotlight and to that end the 6 sensors at each TE013 lobe should help to determine what is happening inside.
-
...I would like to see multiple taps, say 6 taps in a 3 mode frustrum at 90 degree (quadrature) separation to measure amplitude and phase as the frustrum accelerates and decelerates to validate motor and generator modes. The amplitude of a slow-traveling standing wave in static, and accelerating conditions.
Thanks & understand the interesting request.
Not really that keen about drilling holes into $12k frustums, plus those sensors could be a big hit on Q.
Maybe could do two in the centre of the middle lobe in my rebuilt flat end plate frustum or maybe build a special frustum just for that measurement with all 6 sensors.
Is on my list.
No, you wouldn't want to mess up something so fine. A clever trick that could make a cheaper, low-quality device look much better is to add sub-critical positive feedback. Drill three more holes, and use a tad of amplification through a variable attenuator from each mode sensor to coupling loops.
The effective Q of a filter is increased with positive feedback - the good 'ol regenerative receiver. Stability issues could then be a concern. Perhaps the attenuators would be stabilized by injecting a pilot tone and detecting it at a higher harmonic. Of course, easier said than done.
-
"frontpage" on National Geographic :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/nasa-impossible-emdrive-physics-peer-review-space-science/
8)
another great article :
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/
skeptical but with a sense of humor. Does make a few good points, though.
f.e. about the relative low sampling rate of the EW results...
It is a something that crossed my mind too.
On the second link I thought that was a pretty savage review as it seemed to take the paper to absolutely pieces in my reading of it.
-
But Eagleworks was sutdown and Paul March was fired...
Please stop spreading false information and insinuations on this forum and review carefully your sources first. While it is true Paul March's contract has not been renewed, Eagleworks is not shot down.
Last I knew they were considering to build a copy of my spherical end plate frustum as attached.
Do hope that they do that as by end 1st qtr 2017 I should have heaps and heaps of experimental data on that thruster design.
-
"frontpage" on National Geographic :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/nasa-impossible-emdrive-physics-peer-review-space-science/
8)
another great article :
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/
skeptical but with a sense of humor. Does make a few good points, though.
f.e. about the relative low sampling rate of the EW results...
It is a something that crossed my mind too.
On the second link I thought that was a pretty savage review as it seemed to take the paper to absolutely pieces in my reading of it.
IMO, the author in the 2nd link has no real idea what he is talking about.
-
This pretty recent article seems relevant to the theoretical discussion.
New Support for Alternative Quantum View
An experiment claims to have invalidated a decades-old criticism against pilot-wave theory, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the most baffling features of the subatomic universe.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
You can make a control test article as a frustum of exact same dimensions and same weight, but without RF power injected. Instead, place a thermal resistance inside and asymmetrically heat the cooper, the resistance being located where the RF normally most heats the copper when the frustum is resonant under your usual EM mode. You could try small side, big side and on walls to complete the picture. Heat the copper at the same temperature under the same rate as a normal test. Then you could truly measure the spurious effects of circulation air currents.
-
A cylindrical control cavity would probably only be useful for matching the resonance mode (and the resonance mode alone) to wholly prove that there are not significant thrust results from symmetrical geometries in this (and other) experiment(s).
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
Building a flat end plate, TE013 @ 2.45GHz resonant control cylinder should be doable. Q will not be the same nor will stored energy but it should not generate any thrust and the 2 end plate phase change wax heat storage banks should keep it fairly cool.
Can also do the NASA Rf dummy load test as well.
At least it should stops SOME critics.
What excites me is being able to measure thruster Q on each and every Rf pulse. Then fairly easy to see if Q drops when acceleration starts and then using real time angular velocity measurement to plot KE energy gain vs cavity energy loss calculated from Q drop and increased power supply energy demand.
Of course that in itself doesn't confirm any theory by itself but it should show where the accelerative energy came from and the conversion process steps, IE, Electrical > Rf > Cavity Energy > KE.
I really don't know what the data will show but do expect it may help to open a door to further understand the EmDrive.
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
I already referenced it to you in a post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612054#msg1612054) regarding your new article. Here it is again:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum" (http://www.bis-space.com/eshop/products-page-2/magazines/jbis/jbis-2016/jbis-vol-69-no-05-may-2016/), JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
It would be a good thing we discuss the content of this paper here :)
Thanks! I had seen the other post but missed the link. I'll get the paper and comment.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control? ...
No. Absolutely no.
The proposed idea (a cylindrical cavity) only makes rational sense to compare with Shawyer's empty truncated conical cavity.
A cylindrical cavity with a dielectric placed asymmetrically in the cavity does not make any rational sense as a control, because according to all the theories and experiments (Shawyer, McCulloch, Notsosureofit, etc.) what is going on here has to do with the asymmetry in the cavity. Hence the comparison should be between an empty truncated cone (asymmetric in the longitudinal direction) and an empty cylindrical cavity (which is symmetric in the longitudinal direction).
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
Wouldn't including the HDPE make it an asymmetric resonant cavity? I would think a control cavity should be TM212 with complete internal symmetry. But the cylinder required is going to be pretty big...
A 95 mm ID 100 mm tall cylinder has the TM212 at 5.97 GHz using the exact solution. For TM212 Pnm = 5.14, L = 2, a is radius and d is length in meters
edit: f_mnl should be f_nml
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
I already referenced it to you in a post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612054#msg1612054) regarding your new article. Here it is again:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum" (http://www.bis-space.com/eshop/products-page-2/magazines/jbis/jbis-2016/jbis-vol-69-no-05-may-2016/), JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
It would be a good thing we discuss the content of this paper here :)
Thanks! I had seen the other post but missed the link. I'll get the paper and comment.
Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
-
Is anyone working on integrating a superconductor plate/coating for higher q factor?
Keep reading these theoretical q number in the 5x10^6..^9 even ^10 range that could be achieved with a superconductor material inside the cavity. Any news on this?
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
-
Hey @rfmwguy,
I'm interested in doing spectrum analysis of my magnetrons and was curious of what equipment you used.
I remember EW measured the spectrum of leakage from their microwave button panel with a water load inside. Did you do something similar? What kind of analyzer did you use?
Thank you
-
Is anyone working on integrating a superconductor plate/coating ?
Sort of.
Cooling a non HTS thruster in LN2 (77K) to measure increased Q and force generation.
Need to get the Q scaling issue sorted and this is a fairly simple way to do it.
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor.
Best, Paul M.
OK, but Todd's dissipation theory explains a very bothersome aspect of the experiments: the very long time delay (that appears to be easily explainable as a thermal delay [Ref. as58's posts]). Todd's theory explains this because of the thermal diffussion in the copper, and dissipation is a crucial aspect of Todd's theory.
How is the very long time delay explained according to a degradable Quantum Vacuum theory? Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a very small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes are of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive, which is much smaller than what is claimed in all other EM Drive experiments). (The Q in Tajmar's EM Drive vacuum experiments was only 20, while the Q in Woodward's vacuum experiments is only 190).
See EM Drive wiki experimental section: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II
Presently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive). See EM Drive wiki experimental section: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II
Presently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
I am writing a comprehensive article (so far over 40 pages long) on calculations vs. experiments for Woodward's device that will be published as part of the Estes Conference proceeding this December. Besides a thorough review of the technology involved (materials and experiments) I present the first exact solution for the dynamic vibration problem of Woodward's experiments. My calculations match their experimental observations regarding optimal mass to use in their piezoelectric/electrostrictive stack, and the direction of the force.
The proceedings will also have a very long article on the EM Drive as written by Fearn based on Paul March's presentation.
There should also be an article by Tajmar on his replication of Woodward's experiments (using a material that results in even lower amplitude than the material presently used by Woodward) and on Tajmar's latest EM Drive experiments. (Tajmar's new results on the EM Drive heretofore unpublished but presented at the Estes Conference)
There will also be an article published on an independent replication of Woodward's experiments by an independent consulting company in Canada. And there will be an article about Todd's (WarpTech) theory.
-
About Woodward's Mach Effect Thrusters or METs: I recommend reading Tom Mahood's homepage about earlier experiments (he has been Woodward's graduate student from 1997 to 1999) which contains good pictures of METs:
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/
As well as this well-written article on Mach effect based propellantless propulsion:
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html
which has the best description of Mach's principle I have ever read. Short and crystal clear:
Mach was an Austrian physicist whose name is used as a measurement of speed, as in "Mach 1," the speed of sound at sea level. He was a contemporary of Einstein, to whom he suggested a thought experiment: What if there was only one object in the universe? Mach argued that it could not have a velocity, because according to the theory of relativity, you need at least two objects before you can measure their velocity relative to each other.
Taking this thought experiment a step further, if an object was alone in the universe, and it had no velocity, it could not have a measurable mass, because mass varies with velocity.
Mach concluded that inertial mass only exists because the universe contains multiple objects. When a gyroscope is spinning, it resists being pushed around because it is interacting with the Earth, the stars, and distant galaxies. If those objects didn't exist, the gyroscope would have no inertia.
Einstein was intrigued by this concept, and named it "Mach's principle."
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor.
Best, Paul M.
OK, but Todd's dissipation theory explains a very bothersome aspect of the experiments: the very long time delay (that appears to be easily explainable as a thermal delay [Ref. as54's posts]). Todd's theory explains this because of the thermal diffusion in the copper, and dissipation is a crucial aspect of Todd's theory.
How is the very long time delay explained according to a degradable Quantum Vacuum theory? Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?
Dr. Rodal:
"Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?"
Agreed, but IMO the time delays observed in the fall 2015 EW lab's in-vacuum testing are specific to the ICFTA design interactions with the EW torque pendulum and are not inherent in the degradable QV interactions. The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Best, Paul M.
-
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
-
Each time i read about this "new rocket engine", i cringe.. :-[
It's not.. it really is not... ???
-
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive). See EM Drive wiki experimental section: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II
Presently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
I am writing a comprehensive article (so far over 40 pages long) on calculations vs. experiments for Woodward's device that will be published as part of the Estes Conference proceeding this December. Besides a thorough review of the technology involved (materials and experiments) I present the first exact solution for the dynamic vibration problem of Woodward's experiments. My calculations match their experimental observations regarding optimal mass to use in their piezoelectric/electrostrictive stack, and the direction of the force.
The proceedings will also have a very long article on the EM Drive as written by Fearn based on Paul March's presentation.
There should also be an article by Tajmar on his replication of Woodward's experiments (using a material that results in even lower amplitude than the material presently used by Woodward) and on Tajmar's latest EM Drive experiments. (Tajmar's new results on the EM Drive heretofore unpublished but presented at the Estes Conference)
There will also be an article published on an independent replication of Woodward's experiments by an independent consulting company in Canada. And there will be an article about Todd's (WarpTech) theory.
I seriously can't wait for your paper Dr. Rodal, but at over 40 pages, it's going to take me a year to comprehend it all! Yikes!
-
...
I seriously can't wait for your paper Dr. Rodal, but at over 40 pages, it's going to take me a year to comprehend it all! Yikes!
So far I have 30 figures and 6 tables, that should make it easier to digest ;)...and there is nothing you can't comprehend 8)
I am writing it in LaTex, but it will be published in another language (epub ?) so that will take some time to convert and edit, so I plan to post my LaTex version in ResearchGate...
-
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
-
The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Good to see the occasional torce direction reversal on power on.
Bet that had a few heads scratching? Did no one ask why can this EmDrive generate a static force in one direction at one power on event and then generate the opposite static force direction at the next power on event?
Interesting?
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"? Doing a good gut feel guess job.
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
-
Craig:
I'm impressed! However if L-3 Com approached Dr.. White about this 100kW Q-Thruster topic, he never told me about it. However I hope you are right in that someone has picked up this 100kW ball that could have produced over a 1,200 Newtons running at its TM010, 929 MHz resonance mode of the EW copper frustum while pumping in 100kW of RF power. Provided of course IF Sonny's QV conjecture was fully encapsulated in Dr. White's 2015 COMSOL/QV Plasma code simulations, see below, and IF it is based in reality, which is still TBD.
BTW, the time steps along the x-axis in these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code Copper Frustum thruster simulations is in picoseconds or 1x10^-12 seconds.
Best, Paul M.
Paul M,
I will push this then and advise you if anything comes out of it!!! They have a test magnetron just sitting there waiting to do this experiment!!! The only catch was that you could not just put the magnetron into the frustrum as shown in the diagram as anything less than a perfect impedance match between the magnetron and the "thruster" would fry the magnetron. However since this bird doesn't need to fly you would just pipe it in-place after an isolator with a waterload to absorb RF energy. I will at the very least ask to show pictures of the setup, it is impressive. Talking picoseconds at 915MHz they could do a 5MW(!!!) 10us trial and the equipment is just sitting there!!! Worst case scenario we have to pay for a nitrogen cooler from Air Liquide. The hardest part is just fabricating the frustrum as just a small bent can cause the resonant frequency to shift. Would this not be the experiment to learn about the QV (or lack of QV?) interaction?
The question I have is why TM010 vs say TM013? We were going to build two frustrums, one at TM010 and one at TM013. Is thrust just impacted by mode because of Q-factor or does anyone think there is something to the mode (magnetohydrodynamic QV flow??).
Will push this.. maybe everyone just got busy and I have made the wrong assumption that they were off to the races with someone else??
CNP
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Phil:
"I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?"
With 20/20 hindsight in place some of us now know that PLL frequency trackers are NOT the best way to go. What is needed is a digital S11 resonant frequency tracker that can accommodate a variable permitivity in the frustum due to pressure changes, but with a force feedback input that can skew the drive frequency off peak resonant power just a few Hz to kHz to maximize the dynamic force output. It also needs to accommodate vehicle acceleration in the manner that Shawyer has talked about in his patents.
Best, Paul M.
-
Craig:
I'm impressed! However if L-3 Com approached Dr.. White about this 100kW Q-Thruster topic, he never told me about it. However I hope you are right in that someone has picked up this 100kW ball that could have produced over a 1,200 Newtons running at its TM010, 929 MHz resonance mode of the EW copper frustum while pumping in 100kW of RF power. Provided of course IF Sonny's QV conjecture was fully encapsulated in Dr. White's 2015 COMSOL/QV Plasma code simulations, see below, and IF it is based in reality, which is still TBD.
BTW, the time steps along the x-axis in these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code Copper Frustum thruster simulations is in picoseconds or 1x10^-12 seconds.
Best, Paul M.
Paul M,
I will push this then and advise you if anything comes out of it!!! They have a test magnetron just sitting there waiting to do this experiment!!! The only catch was that you could not just put the magnetron into the frustrum as shown in the diagram as anything less than a perfect impedance match between the magnetron and the "thruster" would fry the magnetron. However since this bird doesn't need to fly you would just pipe it in-place after an isolator with a waterload to absorb RF energy. I will at the very least ask to show pictures of the setup, it is impressive. Talking picoseconds at 915MHz they could do a 5MW(!!!) 10us trial and the equipment is just sitting there!!! Worst case scenario we have to pay for a nitrogen cooler from Air Liquide. The hardest part is just fabricating the frustrum as just a small bent can cause the resonant frequency to shift. Would this not be the experiment to learn about the QV (or lack of QV?) interaction?
The question I have is why TM010 vs say TM013? We were going to build two frustrums, one at TM010 and one at TM013. Is thrust just impacted by mode because of Q-factor or does anyone think there is something to the mode (magnetohydrodynamic QV flow??).
Will push this.. maybe everyone just got busy and I have made the wrong assumption that they were off to the races with someone else??
CNP
Craig:
The one thing you need to understand is that the off-the-shelf 929 MHz XXXkW magnetrons won't work very well with a high-Q copper frustum due to its nominal very wide bandwidth, which means that most of its RF input power would be wasted heating the cavity walls instead of maximizing the generated E&M fields. At room temperature, a copper frustum driving a TE013 resonant response has a resonant -3dB bandwidth of say 30 kHz where as the magnetron's normal output is smeared over 30 to 60 MHz dependent on its design and operating temperature. However, what one can do is to modify the magnetron along the lines in the attached slide so that it becomes a controllable frequency source with similar -3dB bandwidth that can be CONTROLLED with an S11 resonant frequency tracker with force feedback as I was talking about with The Traveler (Phil).
BTW, we still don't know what resonant mode will generate the best thruster efficiency other than high Q-factors, to a point, are better. The reason I had Jerry Vera run these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code simulations at the TM010 resonant mode frequency was that we already had the COMSOL results for the EW copper frustum and it had a TM010 resonant frequency close to the 929 MHz output of this L-3 Comm 100kW magnetron with 88% efficiency. From the testing experience of Shawyer and others, the best frustum resonant mode may be to run the cavity at its TE013 resonance, which means purpose building a copper frustum with its as-built TE013 resonance at 929 MHz and one that can handle the 12+kW of power dissipation.
Best,
-
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
Todd:
Great idea and thanks much for the pointer to the Urban paper! I will read and consider how one might do this on the cheap in my home lab once it is built.
Best, Paul M.
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Phil:
"I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?"
With 20/20 hindsight in place some of us now know that PLL frequency trackers are NOT the best way to go. What is needed is a digital S11 resonant frequency tracker that can accommodate a variable permitivity in the frustum due to pressure changes, but with a force feedback input that can skew the drive frequency off peak resonant power just a few Hz to kHz to maximize the dynamic force output. It also needs to accommodate vehicle acceleration in the manner that Shawyer has talked about in his patents.
Best, Paul M.
Yup. Like this.
-
The question I have is why TM010 vs say TM013?
TE013 eliminates eddy currents crossing over the end plate to side wall joint. If that joint is not VERY perfect you can get arcing and bad mode formation in other than TE01x modes. Plus Roger advised all DIYers to use TE013 and it seems to work well.
-
Craig:
The one thing you need to understand is that the off-the-shelf 929 MHz XXXkW magnetrons won't work very well with a high-Q copper frustum due to its nominal very wide bandwidth, which means that most of its RF input power would be wasted heating the cavity walls instead of maximizing the generated E&M fields. At room temperature, a copper frustum driving a TE013 resonant response has a resonant -3dB bandwidth of say 30 kHz where as the magnetron's normal output is smeared over 30 to 60 MHz dependent on its design and operating temperature. However, what one can do is to modify the magnetron along the lines in the attached slide so that it becomes a controllable frequency source with similar -3dB bandwidth that can be CONTROLLED with an S11 resonant frequency tracker with force feedback as I was talking about with The Traveler (Phil).
BTW, we still don't know what resonant mode will generate the best thruster efficiency other than high Q-factors, to a point, are better. The reason I had Jerry Vera run these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code simulations at the TM010 resonant mode frequency was that we already had the COMSOL results for the EW copper frustum and it had a TM010 resonant frequency close to the 929 MHz output of this L-3 Comm 100kW magnetron with 88% efficiency. From the testing experience of Shawyer and others, the best frustum resonant mode may be to run the cavity at its TE013 resonance, which means purpose building a copper frustum with its as-built TE013 resonance at 929 MHz and one that can handle the 12+kW of power dissipation.
Best,
PM and the Traveller,
Can I permission to forward this diagram?
My understanding is that we can adjust +/- 5MHz with the test setup they have at 915MHz.
We were aiming to do a TE013 mode design (Q=133526 at 914.85MHz) with an a S11 of approximately 15dB.
We were going to actually use compress to ensure high quality fabrication of the frustrum (and rate it as an ASME vessel). Building the frustrums with an industrial fabricator isn't as expensive as you would think with the right equipment that we could try to tune by building more frustrums.
-
... L-3 was to send me dimensions (I used the Travellers spreadsheet to come up with some rough dimensions to confirm) but then they stopped emailing me after sending pictures
Perhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.
-
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
Todd:
Great idea and thanks much for the pointer to the Urban paper! I will read and consider how one might do this on the cheap in my home lab once it is built.
Best, Paul M.
A simple calculation for a parallel plate capacitor with a vacuum dielectric turns out that an electric field of 2.5 x 107 V/m, is not difficult to achieve. For instance, a 1 nF capacitor, is only an area of 10 mm2 with a separation of 8.84 x 10-8 m. This E field strength occurs at only 2.21V!!!! Obviously, if there were significant non-linearity in the vacuum permittivity due to e-p pairs at these field strengths, surely they would've been noticed by now in capacitor manufacturing.
In my view, and my opinion is based on P. W. Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum", the vacuum "IS" an electromagnetic field. Superimposing a stronger EM field on top of the ZPF, is just raising the energy state of the QV by the number of photons in each state. The field superimposed on the ZPF, and the ZPF are the same thing, except with a much narrower bandwidth and non-random polarization. If the QV had anything to do with this, then IMO the Casimir effect alone would propel it, but it doesn't. We need to superimpose a stronger field, which we can push against, and that field must be asymmetrically annihilated (dissipated) in order to make it move.
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Phil:
"I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?"
With 20/20 hindsight in place some of us now know that PLL frequency trackers are NOT the best way to go. What is needed is a digital S11 resonant frequency tracker that can accommodate a variable permitivity in the frustum due to pressure changes, but with a force feedback input that can skew the drive frequency off peak resonant power just a few Hz to kHz to maximize the dynamic force output. It also needs to accommodate vehicle acceleration in the manner that Shawyer has talked about in his patents.
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
For any space drive, tracking changes in momentum is preferred to tracking just a force. Force is a short hand notation.
F = m a = d(mv)/dt
Now we
So one has to not only track acceleration but also any change in mass. The difficulty is that permittivity and permeability may also change. Any pinning of the magnetic field to the walls or to the flow will also create issues to address.
So we have four cases,
1. Inertia mass is constant, acceleration is constant
2. Inertia mass is variable (transient), acceleration is constant
3. Inertia mass is constant, acceleration is variable
4. Inertia mass is variable (transient), acceleration is variable
In the later two cases, variable acceleration suggests da/dt which is the jerk or jolt. When acceleration varies, then one may use differential or delta step functions depending on the continuity desired.
Note that continuity may be challenging in an environment where both mass and acceleration are uncoupled variables.
The Poynting vector, E X B, may be an oversimplification by not containing total angular momentum of the photons.Poynting vector contributions may not be accurate if there is energy stored or released in the total angular momentum stored or released in the RF/microwave photons. In a photon, both spin and orbit angular momentum need to be accounted for.
There is also reference frame issue for acceleration which Woodward addresses in his book but I have not seen White address reference frames.
dm
-
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Phil:
"I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?"
With 20/20 hindsight in place some of us now know that PLL frequency trackers are NOT the best way to go. What is needed is a digital S11 resonant frequency tracker that can accommodate a variable permitivity in the frustum due to pressure changes, but with a force feedback input that can skew the drive frequency off peak resonant power just a few Hz to kHz to maximize the dynamic force output. It also needs to accommodate vehicle acceleration in the manner that Shawyer has talked about in his patents.
Best, Paul M.
Yup. Sounds like a force locked loop to me! Glad to help out!
-
Hey @rfmwguy,
I'm interested in doing spectrum analysis of my magnetrons and was curious of what equipment you used.
I remember EW measured the spectrum of leakage from their microwave button panel with a water load inside. Did you do something similar? What kind of analyzer did you use?
Thank you
Very basic USB spec an. Be sure to isolate with 30dB attenuator and use unity gain dipole antenna. Locate pickup several feet from Sig source and laptop even further. Buy the best spec an you can afford. For general Sig strength and spectral display, a quality USB spec an worked just fine.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
TT, specific to the test apparatus part of the question.
First, I would ensure that the air bearing had clean dry air supplied to it. You would definitely need an oil separator if you were not using an oiless compressor. You would follow up the output with a 50 foot length of copper tubing coiled inside a tub of water at room temperature. This is for heat exchanging purposes to ensure the heat of compression was partly eliminated. Lastly, I would follow with two air regulators. The first being an inexpensive one to filter out pressure changes as the compressor cycles on and off. The second being an expensive precision regulator to hold to a fraction of a psi. If you are using bottled nitrogen I would still use the heat exchanger to compensate for the cooling from expansion.
The air bearing would be placed on a purpose built three legged mounting stand (no cobbled 80/20 or optical breadboard components for this part). This would all rest on a concrete floor of reasonable thickness and good soil underlayment. If using a flat bearing combined with a cylindrical bearing, the top of the air bearing would need to be flat enough to support leveling to 0.0005”/ft and that is also the target value for the final level. Walking around on the concrete floor while leveling should not affect the bubble’s position. If using a hemisphere. You would want to maintain level but not as stringent. For the hemisphere, maintaining the vertical CG below the spherical center is required. For either bearing keeping the horizontal CG coincident with the axis of rotation is strongly advised.
The room would be temperature controlled and free of drafts. A way to shut the HVAC off during tests is important. A waiting period for the HVAC convection to settle is advised.
A 30 frame per second camera mounted directly above and looking straight down on the experiment is wholly necessary. 30 fps has been proven fast enough for this kind of work although a CCD is preferred over a CMOS sensor that has a rolling shutter. A rolling shutter would be useless. Camera and video capture system must not lose its time base by dropping frames as this would corrupt the calculations. Having angular markings every 10 degree around the bearing and a stationary pointer would allow us to measure position often enough to be useful. Three full rotations during a testing run is the minimum for good analysis. Less than one rotation appropriately brings on questions as to the test's validity; in fact, it negates the apparent validity in my mind. A full rotation would help us evaluate/eliminate level vs. CG errors, interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, and other experimental problems. Several rotations lets us see if we’ve reached a terminal angular velocity where thrust torque matches profile drag.
A reasonable estimate of the mass moment of inertia of the entire rotating section would allow us to calculate torque and thus force. I can help with this estimate when the time comes. As for data, the angular position verses time stamp, and MOI is all that is needed to do the major math. A side view FLIR, other cameras, room temperature might be useful to analyze if things got weird.
However, before running actual tests we would want to characterize the system with the camera running. First, with just the bare bearing (nothing mounted) we would want to measure both motoring (Paul called it swirl) torque and coulomb friction. These let us know that you have a good bearing or need to compensate. Basically, from stopped, the bearing is allowed to accelerate on its own; it might take hours. It will accelerate if it is not a perfect bearing and if motoring torque is greater than coulomb friction. The second test of the still bare bearing would feature you inducing a CW spin by hand and letting it decay on its own, then repeating this CCW. This might take 10 minutes to an hour for data in each direction. From this we can confirm the motoring and calculate coulomb. I have done this for twenty air bearings when required by our customers. I will scrub a spreadsheet and make it and myself available when the time comes. Finally, with the full apparatus mounted, we would repeat the hand induced CW and CCW spins and process in the same spreadsheet to get the profile drag components, coulomb, viscous, and turbulence of the all-up experiment.
I have used all these techniques before so none are new to me. What you require (including MOI and CG) knowledge and control are all part of what we have done for customers and for building our own corporate knowledgebase. www.space-electronics.com Count me as someone who wants dearly to see this work while maintaining a healthy skepticism; mainly because I see experiments that simply have not measured up. That said I am more than willing to help where I can.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
-
I found this thread on 4chan of all places in the political section, I think what you guys are doing is really cool. My question though is people talk about this being used for long space journey, but what about stuff that can be used on the ground here on earth? Is there any hope it will lets say, change everything? Btw, I never knew this thing costed so much, here I thought you could make these things with using stuff from shelf usage, like microwave magnetrons for example, but the ones you guys are talking about costs few thousand dollars, pretty crazy. Well, anyways, enough of me, goodluck and I will be watching this thread from now on.
-
......
I'm asking for more insight on the relation between momentum and reflectance, because it would have profound implications :
If i may simplify the situation a bit to explain what was perhaps a bit too poorly elaborated :
I recall the discussions about the tennis balls bouncing back and forth in a huge frustum space station.
As long you consider the reflectance of the walls to be uniform in every direction, it is only the angle of incidence that will determine the size of the momentum. And in the end, when you add up all bounces, the final sum of all forces will be zero. That much I understood...
But I see a problem if the reflectance of the walls would vary according the direction you throw the balls. It would mean that for the direction (small end > big end) the transfer of momentum/force would be smaller then what the angle of incidence would predict.
So, it puzzles me on how the relation is then, between the reflectance and the momentum transfer ?
To put it simply, physics as we know it requires a force to THROW THE BALL! If you're in a funnel shaped copper cavity headed towards the moon, and you throw a tennis ball towards the moon, you and your cavity are accelerated away from the moon due to the energy required to THROW THE BALL. The tennis ball can then hit a steel plate, a mattress, or glance off the walls. It doesn't matter. When all of the energy has dissipated and the ball has come to rest, the net result is zero gain in momentum. At the most basic level, this is the fundamental issue with the Emdrive, and the issue every one here is trying to explain.
EDIT: Of course, an Emdrive is constantly stuffing more and more tennis balls into your copper cavity, and insisting that you throw them in a collimated fashion so that as one tennis ball is leaving your hand, the last one you threw is just exactly bouncing off the wall of your choice (hence all of the discussion about modes and Q). The more tennis balls you can deal with, the greater the Q. The end result is the same. You're going nowhere at a great rate, surrounded by tennis balls. Unless, of course, current physics is incomplete. And I'm sure it is ;)
Sigh.. I knew this would happen the moment I started writing about tennis balls...
I thought it would be more clear the tennis ball analogy is rather flawed, but apparently, it isn't... :-[
It is not about the total sum of all the action/reactions I'm writing about, but I'm trying to get the understanding about reflection right.
Reflection is the most essential feature/process of what happens inside an EMdrive.
If you take 1 complete cycle, going from big end to small en and back, the total sum of the reflectance from small to big end is < then the total sum, especially when you consider it to be a wave, instead of a particle.
The problem with particles is that we associate the too much with real life observations where hard kinetic impacts have an apparent linear relation with the angle of incidence.
I'm not trying to explain the EMdrive with this, I don't have a comprehensive theory. I only have questions.
In this case about reflection and its relation with force/momentum transfer, because it is the most essential part of what happens inside an EMdrive.
The non linearity of reflection is really counter-intuitive and understanding it "might" give a clue to why an EMdrive functions. (IF it really functions).
My idea is that - IF the EMdrive does indeed work - we need to see and rethink what misconceptions we have, because maybe we then can find clues that help solve these apparent conflicts.
The EMdrive (probably) does not violate CoM. The press likes sensation but totally reverses the logic...
The question should be : what did we miss in our understanding of CoM, that doesn't need "new physics", but only a more accurate understanding of what's happening...
This means retracing, step by step, what we know and investigating any of the shortcuts we took for granted for so long...
Because it is a resonance cavity, any minuscule variation can get potentially amplified (Q 100k ? or more) to a point it becomes no longer negligible...
So questions like : what brings us the non-linearity of reflection, or the extraordinary momentum/spin in evanescent waves, become important because they're not really considered in our daily understanding of the world around us.
As far as comprehensive theories goes, I do have a preference for Todd's asymmetric dissipation/attenuation based upon the wave properties of RF waves...It's way above my head how he does it, but it looks like a logical and elegant solution to the apparent CoM/CoE conflict...
Flyby,
we know that reflections within a waveguide are attenuated by electrical resistance, there is no mystery there. We know that there is anomalous thrust and it seems to be proportional to the number of reflections so your question is well asked.
What I visualize as the mechanism of reflection is absorption which induces current in the surface of the reflector, followed by emission when that current is diverted or reversed as it reaches an edge or a discontinuity. This is not a large mirror reflecting light though, the visualization is rapidly complicated by the refractive index and other properties and dimensions of the surface.
Non of this is very relevant until you ask how that constitutes a connection with the universe outside of the frustum, for that I hope other readers will forgive me posting my own yet undeveloped surmise once more. Attached was published at my own expense in the IJEK in 2015.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s margins? yes? thnx , FL
??? What does this mean? What are 4/100 margins? Margins of what? Have you a reference to previous posts? Perhaps keep in mind you appear to be asking questions on a public forum of a member who has accomplished a lot of arm waving, prematurely released results without permission to do so, and otherwise posted nothing but noise, unless it was ideas he's slowly absorbed from other's input on this very site. "Magic Happens Inside" strongly implies that some folks don't really understand how to impliment the hardware they fantasize, yet would like to appear to be able to do so. Claims of fabrication, with ball point pen sketches on napkins of multi-thousand dollar hardware just smells "odd", in my not so humble opinion.
If, perchance, you are asking about frustum fabrication tolerances, you might want to include the measurement system involved (English, metric, Klingon). In any case, no published results have determined that fabrication tolerances have any effect whatsoever, except as thay may influence cavity Q, which is well established microwave engineering.
As a microwave engineer, please don't get into the "how do I fabricate a cavity to resonate with my crappy source" discussion again. Even the latest NASA paper is past this one. You need to build the highest Q cavity possible, and then tune the driving microwave source to it, with a control loop that optimizes force. I addressed this almost 2 years ago. Since absolutely no one knows whether this effect exists at all, optimizing for reflection coefficient or any other effect other than the desired one (thrust versus input microwave power) is completely pointless. Maximize the effect until it is out of all conceivable noise, and develop the theory once the effect is proven. To date, the effect is polywater. All results are "down in the grass" (the baseline noise you see on a spectrum analyser due to it's own thermal and phase noise signature).
-
Have you seen this recent interview with Shawyer for IBTimes UK where he claims that he had EmDrives having 8 g and 18 g of thrust (the latter one Boeing has been testing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k
What do you think?
-
Have you seen this recent interview with Shawyer for IBTimes UK where he claims that he had EmDrives having 8 g and 18 g of thrust (the latter one Boeing has been testing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k
What do you think?
We have, some number of pages back - its a bit hard to dig through, but I do remember this being posted. My opinion was, and is, that I'll believe those extraordinary thrust numbers when I see them demonstrated.
-
...
"Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?"
Agreed, but IMO the time delays observed in the fall 2015 EW lab's in-vacuum testing are specific to the ICFTA design interactions with the EW torque pendulum and are not inherent in the degradable QV interactions. The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Best, Paul M.
I remember those graphs because the reverse response was so much less than the forward response. If I'm not mistaken that was also when your group started to mitigate the Lorentz error. My conclusion then and now of the reverse graph is that it is due to magnetic interaction. It is the only "thrust" waveform that has the characteristics of a second order step response. There is a fast rise/fall time and an overshoot with ringing. That type of response curve has not been seen again in your results. The second graph is a first order step response; ie:thermal. In a vacuum or low pressure atmosphere the time constant is longer. It would be useful to see a lot more data, even families of plots. For example what would the plots look like if the pressure was stepped down by powers of ten (logrithmically), with everything else the same? My guess is the time constant of the step response would increase as the pressure decreased. Another experiment I have been asking all the em-drive dy people to do is to heat up the Copper cone with resistive heaters and collect data as if it was an RF input. No one has done that yet. I'm sure the EW team has the resources to do this.
The more things you change in an experimental setup the more information you get from your experiments. For example what would happen if the EW team redesigned the mounting hardware that holds the Copper cone on the TP arm. If they could design it so that the CG vs displacement test using the 10 gram weight no longer caused a significant change in displacement how would that affect later tests? It would be interesting to see. I know the EW team has done excellent work and are only interested in finding the truth so I assume they will eventually do some of the things I have suggested.
-
Bad data, bad assumptions.
As per the attached, the right side data, which I have posted before, is badly wrong. The vertical scale is in Ohm and not in mOhm plus the Cu Rs curve at 300K (room temp) is about as wrong as it can get.
The left side image shows a truer picture and as the room temp and 77K Rs copper curves are very close together, there is little to be gained by cooling a Cu or Al with Ag coating frustum to 77K.
The original of the bad data screenshot is attached.
Apologies.
-
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
If there only were some kind of, I don't know, calibration pulse.
In all seriousness... this is pretty bad. I use the calibration pulse to determine the time constant of the pendulum as 4 seconds, and get no thrust in their latest graphs. What ever was responding to power rapidly is now gone.
Yes, there's something odd at 17..20 s , but then, there's great many components being heated non-uniformly. Some may even be undergoing quasi-phase changes (plastics have a glass transition temperature). Some may be warping until they mechanically come in contact with another component.
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
Dear Paul,
Do you have additional data for us about the dynamic behavior of the torque pendulum?
Without this, the observed responses are difficult to judge. The torsional constant of the flexure bearings must be quite big, given the rather fast response to a step function. The moment of inertia must be more than 6 kg.m^2, I guess (cooling block 5 kg, frustum, amp, counter weight...).
Has the frequency response been measured? And what is the damping factor?
I think it is really necessary to know this for a system like this.
Thanks,
Peter
-
Perhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.
This is a problem that has to be overcome regardless no? What solution would you recommend? Argon environment? Seems like we have to work this out if this unit is to, quite literally, fly.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s margins? yes? thnx , FL
??? What does this mean? What are 4/100 margins? Margins of what? Have you a reference to previous posts? Perhaps keep in mind you appear to be asking questions on a public forum of a member who has accomplished a lot of arm waving, prematurely released results without permission to do so, and otherwise posted nothing but noise, unless it was ideas he's slowly absorbed from other's input on this very site. "Magic Happens Inside" strongly implies that some folks don't really understand how to impliment the hardware they fantasize, yet would like to appear to be able to do so. Claims of fabrication, with ball point pen sketches on napkins of multi-thousand dollar hardware just smells "odd", in my not so humble opinion.
If, perchance, you are asking about frustum fabrication tolerances, you might want to include the measurement system involved (English, metric, Klingon). In any case, no published results have determined that fabrication tolerances have any effect whatsoever, except as thay may influence cavity Q, which is well established microwave engineering.
As a microwave engineer, please don't get into the "how do I fabricate a cavity to resonate with my crappy source" discussion again. Even the latest NASA paper is past this one. You need to build the highest Q cavity possible, and then tune the driving microwave source to it, with a control loop that optimizes force. I addressed this almost 2 years ago. Since absolutely no one knows whether this effect exists at all, optimizing for reflection coefficient or any other effect other than the desired one (thrust versus input microwave power) is completely pointless. Maximize the effect until it is out of all conceivable noise, and develop the theory once the effect is proven. To date, the effect is polywater. All results are "down in the grass" (the baseline noise you see on a spectrum analyser due to it's own thermal and phase noise signature).
Shawyer is a microwave engineer too and his results are not in the noise nor are they "polywater"
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
To me, this looks very similar to the relation of phase velocity versus group velocity, whats changing due to the changing diameter along the central axis of symmetry. ???
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Waveguide_wavelength.svg/330px-Waveguide_wavelength.svg.png)
It seems you try to describe something like
Q=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)
while from your viewpoint "Q" stands for "∫Q per λ/2", right?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
Point 4)
-
Perhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.
This is a problem that has to be overcome regardless no? What solution would you recommend? Argon environment? Seems like we have to work this out if this unit is to, quite literally, fly.
According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas SF6 can get you 3 - 6 times 30kv/cm breakdown for air, and freon up to 17, pressurized.
From another article I read somewhere, microwave fields can be near double DC or lower frequency fields, because charges don't have time to accelerate.
We need to have someone give us the impedance/fields in the frustrum to know where arcing is likely, and the most power that it can be expected to handle.
From articles I glanced at a couple weeks ago after TT spoke as though he was thinking superconducting cavities with Q's > 10^7 could handle a kilowatt input (dissipated), I saw (IIRC) 100 - 500 MW peak power (not dissipated, stored energy) in hard vacuum. Do a web search for "superconducting cavity accelerator "breakdown voltage"".
New technology will apparently need to be developed to handle high field strengths.
I just wanted to point out, that some engineer at L-3 may have had their manager snicker at them when they asked about putting 100KW into a cavity with Q > 1000. I don't know. There are limits.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
To me, this looks very similar to the relation of phase velocity versus group velocity, whats changing due to the changing diameter along the central axis of symmetry. ???
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Waveguide_wavelength.svg/330px-Waveguide_wavelength.svg.png)
It seems you try to describe something like
Q=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)
while from your viewpoint "Q" stands for "∫Q per field node (π/2)", right?
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
I think the EW paper is the best piece of research on the EmDrive that we have seen to date. Being overly critical of every paragraph is time consuming and slows down progress. It is what it is. Risk taking and not-knowing are what drives the ball forward. IMO, EW did a great job, better than anyone else has done at trying to resolve potential errors.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Good points, most of them. Some I also mentioned earlier.
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
To me, this looks very similar to the relation of phase velocity versus group velocity, whats changing due to the changing diameter along the central axis of symmetry. ???
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Waveguide_wavelength.svg/330px-Waveguide_wavelength.svg.png)
It seems you try to describe something like
Q=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)
while from your viewpoint "Q" stands for "∫Q per field node (π/2)", right?
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
Todd,
due to EM-field energy to net force conversion it's quite logical that there should be a dissipative component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. :)
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s margins? yes? thnx , FL
??? What does this mean? What are 4/100 margins? Margins of what? Have you a reference to previous posts? Perhaps keep in mind you appear to be asking questions on a public forum of a member who has accomplished a lot of arm waving, prematurely released results without permission to do so, and otherwise posted nothing but noise, unless it was ideas he's slowly absorbed from other's input on this very site. "Magic Happens Inside" strongly implies that some folks don't really understand how to impliment the hardware they fantasize, yet would like to appear to be able to do so. Claims of fabrication, with ball point pen sketches on napkins of multi-thousand dollar hardware just smells "odd", in my not so humble opinion.
If, perchance, you are asking about frustum fabrication tolerances, you might want to include the measurement system involved (English, metric, Klingon). In any case, no published results have determined that fabrication tolerances have any effect whatsoever, except as thay may influence cavity Q, which is well established microwave engineering.
As a microwave engineer, please don't get into the "how do I fabricate a cavity to resonate with my crappy source" discussion again. Even the latest NASA paper is past this one. You need to build the highest Q cavity possible, and then tune the driving microwave source to it, with a control loop that optimizes force. I addressed this almost 2 years ago. Since absolutely no one knows whether this effect exists at all, optimizing for reflection coefficient or any other effect other than the desired one (thrust versus input microwave power) is completely pointless. Maximize the effect until it is out of all conceivable noise, and develop the theory once the effect is proven. To date, the effect is polywater. All results are "down in the grass" (the baseline noise you see on a spectrum analyser due to it's own thermal and phase noise signature).
Shawyer is a microwave engineer too and his results are not in the noise nor are they "polywater"
His peer reviewed results that allow independant 3rd parties to replicate his "results"? I'm probably dating myself, but IIRC there were quite a few peer reviewed methods and means of synthesizing polywater, over a span of something like a decade. So in that repect, you're absolutely right. Polywater was "better science" than the Emdrive.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
I think the EW paper is the best piece of research on the EmDrive that we have seen to date. Being overly critical of every paragraph is time consuming and slows down progress. It is what it is. Risk taking and not-knowing are what drives the ball forward. IMO, EW did a great job, better than anyone else has done at trying to resolve potential errors.
It indeed seems to be the best piece of research in this field. But some important information is missing in the recent article. I advice the Eagleworks team to publish a report with more technical details about the instrumentation (e.g. on researchgate or arxiv), so the work will even gain in quality.
That is how science should work: colleagues are allowed to ask details and criticize the work of others. That certainly doesn't slow down progress.
Cheers,
Peter
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Good points, most of them. Some I also mentioned earlier.
I've looked through them and even with my limited technical knowledge in this area they didn't seem a bad list of issues that's why I cross-posted it.
-
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
Todd,
due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. :)
Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.
If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.
I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Good points, most of them. Some I also mentioned earlier.
I've looked through them and even with my limited technical knowledge in this area they didn't seem a bad list of issues that's why I cross-posted it.
This was written by eric1600 on Reddit and pretty much sums up critiques I've seen there. A counterpoint should probably be considered as this is a well thought out response and is written in the spirit of scientific discussion without invectives and point of authority argumentation.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Several relevant points were made, but none that couldn't be answered. Either by data that was left out or by a rerun of the test bed.
Personally I've wondered why a TM212 mode was pushed? When clearly the TE012 mode provided a >5 fold indication of thrust when run. I know now the TE012 mode was hard to keep tuned because of close by resonate modes. Although cost wise a frustum of different dimensions that would have a TE012 or 013 that was sufficiently isolated from accompanying close modes is not that costly or challenging engineering wise.
Dr. White IMHO should have followed the data and brought the thrust levels out from the noise. You could have been recording >600uN instead of the lower 128uN. I might assume that the reason was is that Dr. White was pushing his theory of Virtual Particle generation and that a TM mode used in particle accelerators might be the main reason why. TE modes won't fit his theory or throw a monkey wrench into theory.
No need to comment on this because it's mostly speculation on my part.
Shell
-
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
Todd:
Great idea and thanks much for the pointer to the Urban paper! I will read and consider how one might do this on the cheap in my home lab once it is built.
Best, Paul M.
A simple calculation for a parallel plate capacitor with a vacuum dielectric turns out that an electric field of 2.5 x 107 V/m, is not difficult to achieve. For instance, a 1 nF capacitor, is only an area of 10 mm2 with a separation of 8.84 x 10-8 m. This E field strength occurs at only 2.21V!!!! Obviously, if there were significant non-linearity in the vacuum permittivity due to e-p pairs at these field strengths, surely they would've been noticed by now in capacitor manufacturing.
In my view, and my opinion is based on P. W. Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum", the vacuum "IS" an electromagnetic field. Superimposing a stronger EM field on top of the ZPF, is just raising the energy state of the QV by the number of photons in each state. The field superimposed on the ZPF, and the ZPF are the same thing, except with a much narrower bandwidth and non-random polarization. If the QV had anything to do with this, then IMO the Casimir effect alone would propel it, but it doesn't. We need to superimpose a stronger field, which we can push against, and that field must be asymmetrically annihilated (dissipated) in order to make it move.
Different perspective ...
IMO the vacuum is an explosive process that started with the Big Bang and is still happening right now i.e. we live in an explosive medium. This explosive process is what we call time and it makes everything in various dynamic combinations. Any object is therefore of the same nature and replaces locally the time process by logical substitution which explosive deficit away from the object is what we call the gravitational field; a field made of a differential in the rate of time.
When an object is given momentum, its field of explosive deficit is distorted and takes the form of a wave, a pilot wave.... So, we have an object inside an explosive medium of the same nature and whose presence/existence results in a logical substitution of the medium time process a.k.a. gravity.
Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) and
the E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)...
WHAT strategy must be used in order to modify the existence field of the object in order to give it the pilot wave shape WITHOUT the usual momentum jerk...
Forget about it! Let’s just drop everything into the “invention machine” ...
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-04/john-koza-has-built-invention-machine (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-04/john-koza-has-built-invention-machine)
... and wait for it to spit out the perfect drive while at the same time going around all known patents ... ;)
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Food for thought Time ... again :(
I love those sims charts COMSOL etc. But, noting being perfect....
What would be the perfect sims softwares? The “perfect” sims softwares would be the ones where on the graph we see a big huge arrow saying “thrust”. O.K., we are not there yet! But, could we get a wee bit closer to that perfect chart? From complex modes, swirling electric and magnetic fields, and energy density we are supposed to guess which way the whole thing is going?
Would it be possible (remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about really) to go to some higher level computation in order to get closer to this big arrow? For example, Warptech’s theory is about a differential in the rate of power dissipation. Could this rate be computed ... for, say, a known working set of modes and compare it with the non working modes or settings to see if any significant differences are showing up on the graph; a better visual on a notable asymmetry of sort.. some clues!!!
... Just saying...
-
Today is the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. To all who post here our wishes that you are well and happy in your lives, especially as you debate these challenges to conventional physics.
If you think that sorting out EM claims and dismissals is hard painstaking work, rest assured that we here are arguing both politics and physics over the dinner table. No one has been hurt...yet. ;)
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Todd - Thanks for this visual aid - it goes a long ways to help some of us laymen understand your hypothesis. My initial observation was, under your theory, could this same effect be created by taking three (or more) independent cylinder cavities, each having a varying radius and depth so they resonate at similar modes, and stacking them onto one another in a taper fashion? (To clarify, when I say independent, I mean fully enclosed with separate RF sources)
I would think that depending on the skin depth and material of each cavity, it would be possible to thermally integrate them, so that dissipation could be managed/amplified in interesting ways.
Anyways, just a quick observation and thought experiment that probably betrays my understanding more than anything :o, but IMO, the answer to this could help clarify what configurations your theory would operate in.
Best regards to everyone who contributes to this effort - it is truly amazing to witness no matter the outcome, now back to lurking ;).
-
Roger told me his Flight Thruster had a Qu of 60,000, which seems correct from my spreadsheets Qu calculation based on the assumed Flight Thruster interior dimensions, TE013 mode and 3.85GHz resonance.
Then taking the 1996 Cu room temp Rs as 15,000 uOhm @ 3.85GHz and my latest offered 3uOhm at 3.85GHz, the reduction in Rs is 5,000x. Then the expected Qu would be 6x10^4 * 5x10^3 = 3x10^8 and the expected specific force being 326mN/kW * 5,000 = 1,630N/kW or 166kg/kW. As the Flight Thruster weight was 2.6kg and adding in a 2kg Al cold wick into the LN2 reservoir, will need to levitate say 5kg, which should need 166/5 = 33W to feed into the YBCO thruster.
So a 3.85Ghz 100W Rf amp should be way more than enough and at 33W thermal dissipation, the LN2 boiloff rate will be very low.
All of which suggest doing an experiment to levitate a YBCO, LN2 cooled, Flight Thruster like thruster design is doable, assuming can get 3uOhm at 3.85GHz YBCO applied to ALL interior surfaces.
The doorway to a levitator is again open.
YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.
Phil
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Several relevant points were made, but none that couldn't be answered. Either by data that was left out or by a rerun of the test bed.
Personally I've wondered why a TM212 mode was pushed? When clearly the TE012 mode provided a >5 fold indication of thrust when run. I know now the TE012 mode was hard to keep tuned because of close by resonate modes. Although cost wise a frustum of different dimensions that would have a TE012 or 013 that was sufficiently isolated from accompanying close modes is not that costly or challenging engineering wise.
Dr. White IMHO should have followed the data and brought the thrust levels out from the noise. You could have been recording >600uN instead of the lower 128uN. I might assume that the reason was is that Dr. White was pushing his theory of Virtual Particle generation and that a TM mode used in particle accelerators might be the main reason why. TE modes won't fit his theory or throw a monkey wrench into theory.
No need to comment on this because it's mostly speculation on my part.
Shell
My thoughts as well.
Paul's advise, some time ago, should be remembered: "Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
Of course if the theory also defines the way to do the build, then sometime difficult to follow that advise 100% as you then have nothing to build test devices from.
-
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
Todd,
due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. :)
Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.
If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.
I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.
Using standard microwave engineering equations for guide wavelength vs mode vs freq vs diameter, the increasing guide wavelength can be plotted big to small end. As seen, the plot is not linear and the guide wavelength starts to get really only as the small end approached cutoff.
Then using Cullen's equation for radiation pressure vs guide wavelength, the decreasing radiation pressure can also be plotted and again is is not linear with decreasing diameter not is it linear with increasing guide wavelength.
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
-
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
That is entirely backwards. The sims are perfectly capable of providing a way to calculate the forces on each end plate and the sidewalls, and they all will show a larger force on the large plate than the small one, balanced by the force on the sidewalls.
While the distance between the nodes of the standing wave increases towards the small end, "distance between nodes of a standing wave" is not the definition of guide wavelength, and is only meaningful at discrete points, not in the continuously varying way that you use guide wavelength. The models can't provide an answer when you don't have a fully defined question, and you have never properly defined guide wavelength in this context.
-
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
That is entirely backwards. The sims are perfectly capable of providing a way to calculate the forces on each end plate and the sidewalls, and they all will show a larger force on the large plate than the small one, balanced by the force on the sidewalls.
While the distance between the nodes of the standing wave increases towards the small end, "distance between nodes of a standing wave" is not the definition of guide wavelength, and is only meaningful at discrete points, not in the continuously varying way that you use guide wavelength. The models can't provide an answer when you don't have a fully defined question, and you have never properly defined guide wavelength in this context.
Good to know the sims can model the forces. Care to do that and share the data? Plus be sure the equations used to calculated the radiation pressure are compatible with the equations of Cullen.
Both Roger and I created Excel spreadsheets that modeled the tapered waveguide as a series of constant diameter waveguides stacked end on end. The results of Roger's and my spreadsheet can calculate the resonant freq in just about any mode, freq and frustum design to around 1% accuracy.
As Roger tells it in the Experimental EmDrive report:
Finally the overall electrical length of the thruster must be a multiple of e/2 where e is the effective wavelength of the thruster.
This effective wavelength will equate to different values of physical length throughout the waveguide assembly.
The overall geometry was defined by building a mathematical model of the thruster based on an Excel spreadsheet.
The physical length was divided into 0.5mm sections and the guide wavelength calculated for each section. The electrical length for that section was calculated and the summation of the section electrical lengths calculated.
Thus variations of diameters, lengths and er could be modelled, with the target of achieving an overall electrical length equal to ne/2.
The model also allowed the operation to be modelled in TE11 and TE12 modes, the nearest unwanted modes. The design was optimised to avoid the possibility of any unwanted mode operation.
Roger used a 0.5mm section length. My spreadsheet divides the frustum length axis into 65,000 very small sections.
As the radiation pressure drops much faster than the diameter drop, going from big to small, it is not possible for the sum of all the forces to equal zero.
Maybe instead of wasting time repeatedly stating why it can't work, maybe try to come up with a theory that fits the observed data?
As Galileo said to his disbelievers: "and yet it moves"
-
Dear friends, it is well known that electromagnetic waves can produce propulsion (solar sails, laser/mirror propulsion etc) , but the already experimented and measured effect is very tiny.
Consider the FACTS:
After very accurate tests it has been found that the so called em drive works in a vacuum.
There is a dielectric inside the cavity and it improves the performances.
Now we need to understand why the em drive works and the role of the dielectric. This is needed to further improve the technology.
Nearly no em wave can escape the cavity. We need to understand the nature of the massive particles that escape the cavity and provide the propulsion.
We have few choices here: neutral massive particles, gravitational waves.
We could exclude neutral particles, because there is no nuclear reaction in the cavity producing neutrons, nor there is a neutrino generator inside and no living being has been harmed.
What remains is gravitational waves, so please give a look at the other thread. Including the references.
Thank you for your attention.
-
I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity. Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart. I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity. I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect. The light being the polarization of the QV.
I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.
I found some interesting information on a cern link that touches on some history. I was excited to see that Richard Feynman may have thought of anti-matter as traveling back in time. It might be connected to the Wheeler-Feynman theory and the Feynman diagrams. I'll probably have to look more into it. Here is the link: http://cds.cern.ch/record/294366/files/open-96-005.pdf
This may also be connected and I suspect it appears to suggest dark matter as anti matter in another dimension where space time flows out of that matter and pulls our space time in leading to gravity but from another dimension? I could be wrong on this as I still have to read this article. I suspect it is what it is about because it was something that I had considered previously. Link is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812021 They mention Feynman and reverse time for anti-matter also! Mmmm, not quite what I expected I suppose.
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless. :o
We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss. ;D
I suppose I found it exciting because it got my mind thinking in a way I hadn't yet which was to make the connection of time reversal in anti-matter and that inducing gravity and relativity. Not sure how solid that foundation might be yet but it seems there may already be some structure for it. I was feeling the need to better understand the quantum vacuum if we are going to speculate we can push off of it.
As promised, here is the article.
So following this theory stated in the attached, what I believe is happening in the EM Drive is that there are more energy -> matter conversions happening on the broader side. These energy -> matter conversions result in more space being created on the broader side of the EM drive, which produces the measurable thrust.
If energy -> matter conversions result in space being created and the converse results in space being consumed, it is the simplest explanation which resolves the accelerated expansion of the Universe, explains gravity, and predicts phenomenon like what occurs in the EM drive. It also is a theory which can be used for bypassing the speed of light by manipulating space instead of traveling through it. Cheers
-
And "The Economist" weighs in:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21710790-impossible-rocket-engine-subject-peer-reviewed-paper-has-british
And "Forbes":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/23/how-physics-falls-apart-if-the-emdrive-works/#5bad5c2c4b0c
Good stuff, since people with real money read these magazines.
-
On the issue of NDA's and secrecy of NASA's Eagleworks on the Warp Drive and the EM Drive, that has been brought up in this forum in the past, some times without actual facts, here is an actual response from NASA JSC PAO (Johnson Space Center Office of Public Affairs) to Keith Cowing's questions at SpaceRef, from 3.5 years ago (Posted April 12, 2013):
http://spaceref.com/nasa-hack-space/propulsion/clarifying-nasas-warp-drive-program.html
What follows is verbatim from the above article except the explanatory note in brackets "[]" I insert below:
Did Harold White sign NDAs as an individual or as a NASA civil servant? Who did he sign these NDAs with?
White has not signed any NDAs. The article has it backwards.
[NOTE: This is in reference to the statement "He (White) explains that he has signed nondisclosure agreements that prevent him from revealing the particulars. " by Konstantin Kakaes April 1, 2013, in http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?single-page-view=true]
In order for the Popular Science author to get briefed on the referenced technology, he would need to sign an NDA with the government as the noted technology has an invention disclosure. An NDA is the mechanism to protect the IP content, but still allow access to interested parties for consideration.
Is Harold White's Eagleworks advanced propulsion/warp drive research considered Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) by NASA?
No, but some of the technology has invention disclosures in the NASA system, and this information is considered SBU. It still may be accessed by interested parties in industry, academia and government with the use of an NDA.
Is Harold White receiving DARPA or other external funding while working at NASA on his advanced propulsion/warp drive research?
Not at this time.
Does NASA have Space Act Agreements or MOUs with external entities related to White's advanced propulsion/warp drive research? If so who are these agreements with?
There are current discussions on a SAA and CRADA with industry partners, but specifics on these agreements are still in negotiation and are SBU.
How much has NASA already spent on this project? How much does it intend to spend on this project? Where do the funds for Eagleworks and White's advanced propulsion/warp drive research come from? JSC? HQ?
The scope and scale of this project is small and commensurate with a university effort. Most of the equipment was pulled from storage to minimize capital procurement. Total procurement to implement the warp field interferometer is ~$50k. The funding comes from JSC.
Was this advanced propulsion/warp drive research submitted to peer review at NASA JSC? At NASA HQ? Who made the funding decision(s)?
Yes, all projects no matter the scope or scale are put through the competitive process, whether through local JSC competitive processes, or more broad agency competitive processes. In addition, Dr. White has written a peer-reviewed paper on his research that will be published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society
Are progress reports made by White as to the progress that his research team has made on advanced propulsion/warp drive research? Are these reports available to the public?
White interfaces with the broader scientific and technical community through technical conferences and scientific journals. When milestones are reached, these results will be communicated with the broader community through the most appropriate and timely mechanism to facilitate distribution of the findings.
What scientific publications have White and his team made on advanced propulsion/warp drive research?
Talks and Publications on Space Warps to date:
- White, H., Warp Field Mechanics 101, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, accepted 2013.
- Physics Colloquium on Warp Field Mechanics requested by Dickinson College, 2013.
- Encore of Warp Field Mechanics 102, technical presentation requested by SpaceVision 2012, Buffalo, NY 2012.
- Warp Field Mechanics 102, technical presentation given at the 100 Year Starship Symposium, Houston, TX, 2012.
- Encore of Warp Field Mechanics 101, technical presentation requested by AIAA, Houston Chapter, Gilruth Center, Houston, TX, 2011.
- Warp Field Mechanics 101, technical presentation given at the 100 Year Starship Symposium, Orlando, FL, 2011, available at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf
- Successful defense of published paper "A Discussion of Space-Time Metric Engineering" as part of Ph.D. candidacy process in Physics at Rice University 2007.
- White, H., E. W. Davis, The Alcubierre Warp Drive in Higher Dimensional Spacetime, in the proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF 2006), American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Melville, New York, 2006.
- White, H., A Discussion of Space-Time Metric Engineering, General Relativity and Gravitation Journal, November 2003."
-
...
"Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?"
Agreed, but IMO the time delays observed in the fall 2015 EW lab's in-vacuum testing are specific to the ICFTA design interactions with the EW torque pendulum and are not inherent in the degradable QV interactions. The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Best, Paul M.
I remember those graphs because the reverse response was so much less than the forward response. If I'm not mistaken that was also when your group started to mitigate the Lorentz error. My conclusion then and now of the reverse graph is that it is due to magnetic interaction. It is the only "thrust" waveform that has the characteristics of a second order step response. There is a fast rise/fall time and an overshoot with ringing. That type of response curve has not been seen again in your results. The second graph is a first order step response; ie:thermal. In a vacuum or low pressure atmosphere the time constant is longer. It would be useful to see a lot more data, even families of plots. For example what would the plots look like if the pressure was stepped down by powers of ten (logrithmically), with everything else the same? My guess is the time constant of the step response would increase as the pressure decreased. Another experiment I have been asking all the em-drive dy people to do is to heat up the Copper cone with resistive heaters and collect data as if it was an RF input. No one has done that yet. I'm sure the EW team has the resources to do this.
The more things you change in an experimental setup the more information you get from your experiments. For example what would happen if the EW team redesigned the mounting hardware that holds the Copper cone on the TP arm. If they could design it so that the CG vs displacement test using the 10 gram weight no longer caused a significant change in displacement how would that affect later tests? It would be interesting to see. I know the EW team has done excellent work and are only interested in finding the truth so I assume they will eventually do some of the things I have suggested.
Zen-in: Please remember that I no longer work at the Eagleworks (EW) Lab and I do not have access to this EW copper frustum test article any longer. I was also working under the direction of Dr. White who did not give me the freedom to pursue a number of tests and thruster optimizations I would have liked to have pursued in the latter part of 2014 till the time I left the EW lab, so a lot of the tests you suggest were thought of, but could not be pursued due to the demands of upper NASA/JSC management. That will change when I get into my new home lab that I will control.
Best, Paul M.
-
As will be discussed in more detail at the end of the section on slope filtering, in order to run the test article in a fully integrated configuration, the torsion pendulum is operated in a highly loaded configuration, which results in slower displacement rates for the torsion pendulum when an impulsive force is applied.
Perhaps nudging the pendulum with a known force could let us get a time to use in place of "slower"?
If there only were some kind of, I don't know, calibration pulse.
In all seriousness... this is pretty bad. I use the calibration pulse to determine the time constant of the pendulum as 4 seconds, and get no thrust in their latest graphs. What ever was responding to power rapidly is now gone.
Yes, there's something odd at 17..20 s , but then, there's great many components being heated non-uniformly. Some may even be undergoing quasi-phase changes (plastics have a glass transition temperature). Some may be warping until they mechanically come in contact with another component.
All:
This will be my last post of the day. The EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) had metallic and plastic components with competing and non-linear thermal expansions and contractions when heated, see previous posted slides on this topic, that when driving the torque pendulum's center of gravity shifts, blurred the impulsive response of this test article in time, dependent on the magnitude of the impulsive force. For me, it is fully explained in the text of the JPP report, so please go back and read it this section again until it hopefully makes sense to you.
Best, Paul M.
Dear Paul,
Do you have additional data for us about the dynamic behavior of the torque pendulum?
Without this, the observed responses are difficult to judge. The torsional constant of the flexure bearings must be quite big, given the rather fast response to a step function. The moment of inertia must be more than 6 kg.m^2, I guess (cooling block 5 kg, frustum, amp, counter weight...).
Has the frequency response been measured? And what is the damping factor?
I think it is really necessary to know this for a system like this.
Thanks,
Peter
Peter:
Find attached two slides with a set of electrostatic fin generated calibration force pulses for both the Eagleworks (EW) split and integrated copper frustum test configurations. I'll let you figure out the rest of the analytical data you are seeking with one other input. The Eagleworks B15 torque pendulum (TP) arm lenghtwas 24.00" long with a ~16.0" forearm and ~10.0" aft-arm lengths from the TP torsion bearings.
Best, Paul M.
-
Mr March,
From the attached two images and the accompanying pdf, would you point us toward the flexure pivot that might closely match what EW used? Thanks.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
Several relevant points were made, but none that couldn't be answered. Either by data that was left out or by a rerun of the test bed.
Personally I've wondered why a TM212 mode was pushed? When clearly the TE012 mode provided a >5 fold indication of thrust when run. I know now the TE012 mode was hard to keep tuned because of close by resonate modes. Although cost wise a frustum of different dimensions that would have a TE012 or 013 that was sufficiently isolated from accompanying close modes is not that costly or challenging engineering wise.
Dr. White IMHO should have followed the data and brought the thrust levels out from the noise. You could have been recording >600uN instead of the lower 128uN. I might assume that the reason was is that Dr. White was pushing his theory of Virtual Particle generation and that a TM mode used in particle accelerators might be the main reason why. TE modes won't fit his theory or throw a monkey wrench into theory.
No need to comment on this because it's mostly speculation on my part.
Shell
The mode frequencies were too close together, and difficult to lock on to. I believe this can be avoided by using a larger cone half-angle. The small angle puts all the frequencies very close together, a larger angle separates them.
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Food for thought Time ... again :(
I love those sims charts COMSOL etc. But, noting being perfect....
What would be the perfect sims softwares? The “perfect” sims softwares would be the ones where on the graph we see a big huge arrow saying “thrust”. O.K., we are not there yet! But, could we get a wee bit closer to that perfect chart? From complex modes, swirling electric and magnetic fields, and energy density we are supposed to guess which way the whole thing is going?
Would it be possible (remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about really) to go to some higher level computation in order to get closer to this big arrow? For example, Warptech’s theory is about a differential in the rate of power dissipation. Could this rate be computed ... for, say, a known working set of modes and compare it with the non working modes or settings to see if any significant differences are showing up on the graph; a better visual on a notable asymmetry of sort.. some clues!!!
... Just saying...
It could, but the cost of the software to do it is out of my price range, and I'm not confident in my ability to write my own code in MathCAD. If someone knows how to program it into MathCAD, that would be ideal.
Can FEKO or COMSOL spit out the programmed equations and variables that it is running? Maybe I could just import those into MathCAD. (I have MathCAD.)
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Todd - Thanks for this visual aid - it goes a long ways to help some of us laymen understand your hypothesis. My initial observation was, under your theory, could this same effect be created by taking three (or more) independent cylinder cavities, each having a varying radius and depth so they resonate at similar modes, and stacking them onto one another in a taper fashion? (To clarify, when I say independent, I mean fully enclosed with separate RF sources)
I would think that depending on the skin depth and material of each cavity, it would be possible to thermally integrate them, so that dissipation could be managed/amplified in interesting ways.
Anyways, just a quick observation and thought experiment that probably betrays my understanding more than anything :o, but IMO, the answer to this could help clarify what configurations your theory would operate in.
Best regards to everyone who contributes to this effort - it is truly amazing to witness no matter the outcome, now back to lurking ;).
I don't think 3 fully independent cylinders will work because the primary goal is to have the internal stored mass-energy "flowing" from one end to the other and not coming back. Such a combination would just be 3 independent MW heaters.
-
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
Todd,
due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. :)
Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.
If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.
I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.
Using standard microwave engineering equations for guide wavelength vs mode vs freq vs diameter, the increasing guide wavelength can be plotted big to small end. As seen, the plot is not linear and the guide wavelength starts to get really only as the small end approached cutoff.
Then using Cullen's equation for radiation pressure vs guide wavelength, the decreasing radiation pressure can also be plotted and again is is not linear with decreasing diameter not is it linear with increasing guide wavelength.
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
Sure they do! What you're missing TT, is that while the "guide wavelength" has this behavior per your graph, the wavelength orthogonal to it, reflecting off the sidewalls would have the opposite graph, where the radiation pressure goes up as the wavelength goes down, in the same manner. Shawyer has a "logical" reason why there is no force on the sidewall, but his logic is flawed and not based soundly on Maxwell's equations. There is most certainly pressure on the sidewalls, and that pressure increases toward the small end. Swap blue and purple on your graph.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Food for thought Time ... again :(
I love those sims charts COMSOL etc. But, noting being perfect....
What would be the perfect sims softwares? The “perfect” sims softwares would be the ones where on the graph we see a big huge arrow saying “thrust”. O.K., we are not there yet! But, could we get a wee bit closer to that perfect chart? From complex modes, swirling electric and magnetic fields, and energy density we are supposed to guess which way the whole thing is going?
Would it be possible (remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about really) to go to some higher level computation in order to get closer to this big arrow? For example, Warptech’s theory is about a differential in the rate of power dissipation. Could this rate be computed ... for, say, a known working set of modes and compare it with the non working modes or settings to see if any significant differences are showing up on the graph; a better visual on a notable asymmetry of sort.. some clues!!!
... Just saying...
It could, but the cost of the software to do it is out of my price range, and I'm not confident in my ability to write my own code in MathCAD. If someone knows how to program it into MathCAD, that would be ideal.
Can FEKO or COMSOL spit out the programmed equations and variables that it is running? Maybe I could just import those into MathCAD. (I have MathCAD.)
FEKO uses the Boundary Element Method (which they call by a different name because the developer came from the EE side instead of numerical analysis) while COMSOL uses a Galerkin form of the Finite Element Method.
The answer is a resounding NO on both of your questions.
Both FEKO and COMSOL are proprietary codes. They are black boxes to users. COMSOL does not even have proper theoretical manuals (unlike more theoretically grounded codes like ABAQUS and ADINA for example).
Does not give me a good feeling,do their users care about the theoretical basis for the code they are using? Why don't they have a theoretical manual?. So no, you cannot get their source code or equations except on some vague terms on their Users Manuals (you can get much more detail on a book on Finite Element Analysis or the Boundary Element Method)..
On MathCad being able to do this well. You need a code that can do Finite Element analysis, being able to effciently invert large matrices. Mathcad FE: http://www.ptc.com/cad/simulation-software/fea
It does not even have an electromagnetic module.
not on the same level as FEKO and COMSOL
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Food for thought Time ... again :(
I love those sims charts COMSOL etc. But, noting being perfect....
What would be the perfect sims softwares? The “perfect” sims softwares would be the ones where on the graph we see a big huge arrow saying “thrust”. O.K., we are not there yet! But, could we get a wee bit closer to that perfect chart? From complex modes, swirling electric and magnetic fields, and energy density we are supposed to guess which way the whole thing is going?
Would it be possible (remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about really) to go to some higher level computation in order to get closer to this big arrow? For example, Warptech’s theory is about a differential in the rate of power dissipation. Could this rate be computed ... for, say, a known working set of modes and compare it with the non working modes or settings to see if any significant differences are showing up on the graph; a better visual on a notable asymmetry of sort.. some clues!!!
... Just saying...
It could, but the cost of the software to do it is out of my price range, and I'm not confident in my ability to write my own code in MathCAD. If someone knows how to program it into MathCAD, that would be ideal.
Can FEKO or COMSOL spit out the programmed equations and variables that it is running? Maybe I could just import those into MathCAD. (I have MathCAD.)
FEKO uses the Boundary Element Method (which they call by a different name because the developer came from the EE side instead of numerical analysis) while COMSOL uses a Galerkin form of the Finite Element Method.
The answer is a resounding NO on both of your questions.
Both FEKO and COMSOL are proprietary codes. They are black boxes to users. COMSOL does not even have proper theoretical manuals (unlike more theoretically grounded codes like ABAQUS and ADINA for example).
Does not give me a good feeling, as a code that does not have a good theoretical manual means that their users do not care that much about the theoretical basis for the code they are using. So no, you cannot get their source code or equations except on some vague terms on their Users Manuals (you can get much more detail on a book on Finite Element Analysis or the Boundary Element Method)..
On MathCad being able to do this well. You need a code that can do Finite Element analysis, being able to effciently invert large matrices. Mathcad FE: http://www.ptc.com/cad/simulation-software/fea
It does not even have an electromagnetic module.
not on the same level as FEKO and COMSOL
That would be a steep learning curve for me. Also, PTC's CREO does not do EM FEA. I had already looked at this. MathCAD can do whatever it's programmed to do, but programming an FEA from first principles would not be easy.
-
Mr March,
From the attached two images and the accompanying pdf, would you point us toward the flexure pivot that might closely match what EW used? Thanks.
Find the EW Lab's Riverhawk torsion bearing specification sheet below. Two of these Riverhawk bearings were used to support the torque pendulum 24.00" long aluminum arm. However we ended up with 410 stainless steel for these bearing blocks when we should have used 316 stainless steel or even alloy 260 brass for the bearing halves to minimize the possibility of post installation magnetization of the blocks. De-gaussing is such a pain to do...
Best, Paul M.
-
...
That would be a steep learning curve for me. Also, PTC's CREO does not do EM FEA. I had already looked at this. MathCAD can do whatever it's programmed to do, but programming an FEA from first principles would not be easy.
If you ever want to spend the time doing this, the easiest route would be to use MEEP from MIT.
Meep is free, and that was precisely its purpose: it is open source, so that students can develop their own modules and equations to solve new problems. Meep is not meant to be used as a black box, but precisely as an open code.
Meep uses the Finite Difference method, which is much simpler than FEM or BEM.
-
The 3 boxes are sized such that the diagonal lines are ~ equal length. This illustrates how the dispersion is different for wavelengths along the z axis versus those perpendicular to it.
Food for thought Time ... again :(
I love those sims charts COMSOL etc. But, noting being perfect....
What would be the perfect sims softwares? The “perfect” sims softwares would be the ones where on the graph we see a big huge arrow saying “thrust”. O.K., we are not there yet! But, could we get a wee bit closer to that perfect chart? From complex modes, swirling electric and magnetic fields, and energy density we are supposed to guess which way the whole thing is going?
Would it be possible (remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about really) to go to some higher level computation in order to get closer to this big arrow? For example, Warptech’s theory is about a differential in the rate of power dissipation. Could this rate be computed ... for, say, a known working set of modes and compare it with the non working modes or settings to see if any significant differences are showing up on the graph; a better visual on a notable asymmetry of sort.. some clues!!!
... Just saying...
It could, but the cost of the software to do it is out of my price range, and I'm not confident in my ability to write my own code in MathCAD. If someone knows how to program it into MathCAD, that would be ideal.
Can FEKO or COMSOL spit out the programmed equations and variables that it is running? Maybe I could just import those into MathCAD. (I have MathCAD.)
FEKO uses the Boundary Element Method (which they call by a different name because the developer came from the EE side instead of numerical analysis) while COMSOL uses a Galerkin form of the Finite Element Method.
The answer is a resounding NO on both of your questions.
Both FEKO and COMSOL are proprietary codes. They are black boxes to users. COMSOL does not even have proper theoretical manuals (unlike more theoretically grounded codes like ABAQUS and ADINA for example).
Does not give me a good feeling,do their users care about the theoretical basis for the code they are using? Why don't they have a theoretical manual?. So no, you cannot get their source code or equations except on some vague terms on their Users Manuals (you can get much more detail on a book on Finite Element Analysis or the Boundary Element Method)..
On MathCad being able to do this well. You need a code that can do Finite Element analysis, being able to effciently invert large matrices. Mathcad FE: http://www.ptc.com/cad/simulation-software/fea
It does not even have an electromagnetic module.
not on the same level as FEKO and COMSOL
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
It looks like the main lines of attack on the paper are in the area of methodology which appear to be a function of the budget available to EW.
-
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
That is entirely backwards. The sims are perfectly capable of providing a way to calculate the forces on each end plate and the sidewalls, and they all will show a larger force on the large plate than the small one, balanced by the force on the sidewalls.
While the distance between the nodes of the standing wave increases towards the small end, "distance between nodes of a standing wave" is not the definition of guide wavelength, and is only meaningful at discrete points, not in the continuously varying way that you use guide wavelength. The models can't provide an answer when you don't have a fully defined question, and you have never properly defined guide wavelength in this context.
Good to know the sims can model the forces. Care to do that and share the data? Plus be sure the equations used to calculated the radiation pressure are compatible with the equations of Cullen.
I don't have any of the sims on my computer, and there are tricks and challenges to using them as discussed by others here. I am not going to spend the time going through all of that, maybe one of the modellers here could if any of them have any patience left for you. As far as making sure it is compatible with Cullen's equations: The sims all use Maxwell's equations which Cullen's equations were derived from. So they are consistent with Cullen's equations by default. Cullen's equations, as explained many times, are for a constant area waveguide, not a tapered resonator, so the answer will probably be somewhat different than by applying Cullen's equations in a situation that they don't apply to.
Since all the sims are just an application of Maxwell's equations, if you give me the dimensions of a frustum with spherical endplates (preferably one that has been built/analyzed already), I could calculate the forces directly from the analytical solution as Egan did. I have offered similar before, but you have never responded with dimensions. The only reason I am willing to spend the time to do this is I would like the practice with Bessel functions, and this would give me a reason to use them.
As the radiation pressure drops much faster than the diameter drop, going from big to small, it is not possible for the sum of all the forces to equal zero.
The second half of that sentence does not follow from the first half at all. (hint:the pressure on the sidewalls is not constant, and there is no reason to expect it to be.) I have shown that before but you seem immune to logic.
-
...
I remember those graphs because the reverse response was so much less than the forward response. If I'm not mistaken that was also when your group started to mitigate the Lorentz error. My conclusion then and now of the reverse graph is that it is due to magnetic interaction. It is the only "thrust" waveform that has the characteristics of a second order step response. There is a fast rise/fall time and an overshoot with ringing. That type of response curve has not been seen again in your results. The second graph is a first order step response; ie:thermal. In a vacuum or low pressure atmosphere the time constant is longer. It would be useful to see a lot more data, even families of plots. For example what would the plots look like if the pressure was stepped down by powers of ten (logrithmically), with everything else the same? My guess is the time constant of the step response would increase as the pressure decreased. Another experiment I have been asking all the em-drive dy people to do is to heat up the Copper cone with resistive heaters and collect data as if it was an RF input. No one has done that yet. I'm sure the EW team has the resources to do this.
The more things you change in an experimental setup the more information you get from your experiments. For example what would happen if the EW team redesigned the mounting hardware that holds the Copper cone on the TP arm. If they could design it so that the CG vs displacement test using the 10 gram weight no longer caused a significant change in displacement how would that affect later tests? It would be interesting to see. I know the EW team has done excellent work and are only interested in finding the truth so I assume they will eventually do some of the things I have suggested.
Zen-in: Please remember that I no longer work at the Eagleworks (EW) Lab and I do not have access to this EW copper frustum test article any longer. I was also working under the direction of Dr. White who did not give me the freedom to pursue a number of tests and thruster optimizations I would have liked to have pursued in the latter part of 2014 till the time I left the EW lab, so a lot of the tests you suggest were thought of, but could not be pursued due to the demands of upper NASA/JSC management. That will change when I get into my new home lab that I will control.
Best, Paul M.
I understand. I should have directed my questions to Sonny White, even if he doesn't read this forum. It is good to hear you are continuing this research under your own direction. I look forward to seeing your results.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
-
...
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
I am afraid that the reputation pre-existing on the EM drive may have counted against it here.
-
...
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
It is good to know the real situation, as it shows the truth. Contrast this with articles about the EM Drive being tested in the X-37B without any evidence or justification (why use something as valuable as the X-37B which has other purposes ;) )
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
and people that post about Boeing going "dark" with the Shawyer project, when the evidence (and the people at Boeing) points otherwise, as to what really happened.
Wonder whether Cannae will really test theirs into Space (hopefully soon), and whether they will make the information available real time...
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
-
...
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
I'm using the newest version of ANSYS HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd.
I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
Shell,
The whole warp drive issue was/is a long shot, way out on the boundaries of the edges of the known..., but the word phrase association with popular sci-fi TV, you know "... to boldly go where no man has gone before." would be enough to give it some popular public support for a small budget. It is a publicly romantic concept.
As soon as you start in with the EmDrive, which at least at present does not look like a path to warp drives and "beam me up Scotty" technologies, you begin to step aside, from the romanticized public support of all but the hard core readers of discussion groups like this.., and risk attaching your name and taxpayer monies to research that may not enjoy the same level of public tolerance, especially in the current economic environment.
Start pumping out some data, run a self contained drive on a magnetic or air bearing turn table up to a credible momentum.., post pictures of the hole in your ceiling caused by the new piece of space junk NASA just started having to track, and institutional and public funding will begin to take on a different attitude.
IOW as you say, "all data is good data".... but a hole in your roof and a report of a flyby from the ISS, would be a whole new ball game.
It is one thing for NASA to quietly fund cutting edge research, of low percentage concepts, because there is always that small chance that something will come of it.., until the public exposure reaches a level where it is no longer a quite process and the the prospects of useable results appear to be an undefined number of years in the future rather, a clearly established timetable.
While it does not appear anyone has yet demonstrated thrust levels that would excite the average "Joe" on the street or in congress, public exposure already has or is very near headline status, of research that has not yet matured sufficiently to justify, the budgets it needs and deserves, in the minds of the average taxpayer.., think about it, how much has the public awareness of the Eagleworks lab, warp drive research and EmDrives grown in the last couple of years? We don't have a Carl Sagan today, who can reach the public the way he did so well in the past, and the few popular figures who might have taken his place today seem to have chosen or been seduced by roles of celebrity....
So we all must just wait for data.............., hint, hint, hint. We don't even need a flying drone, a self contained remote controlled model boat, powered by an EmDrive would be enough. Think cargo ships whose primary power is a pebble-bed reactor and a series of EmDrives.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
If we are going to talk about pure utility the argument could be made that throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money down the black hole that is the National Ignition Facility, something that is probably never going to produce a useful form of Nuclear Fusion isn't the best of investments.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
If we are going to talk about pure utility the argument could be made that throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money down the black hole that is the National Ignition Facility, something that is probably never going to produce a useful form of Nuclear Fusion isn't the best of investments.
The advanced propulsion initiative within NASA seems like it's been gun-shy ever since the millions spent at GRC with Millis' group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program
JPL has branched into earth science and what remains appears to be mission control and conventional propulsion. Something this new is probably best in the private sector. However...
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html
-
...
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
It is good to know the real situation, as it shows the truth. Contrast this with articles about the EM Drive being tested in the X-37B without any evidence or justification (why use something as valuable as the X-37B which has other purposes ;) )
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
and people that post about Boeing going "dark" with the Shawyer project, when the evidence (and the people at Boeing) points otherwise, as to what really happened.
Wonder whether Cannae will really test theirs into Space (hopefully soon), and whether they will make the information available real time...
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
Dr. Rodal, you're out of the loop ;). The Vulcans arrive 15 minutes after the Cannae cube-sat is activated.
-
...snip...
The doorway to a levitator is again open.
YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.
Phil
Since by GR in the frame of the frustum it can't tell the difference between actual acceleration or being in a gravity field, shouldn't you experience the drop in Q if you try to accelerate in the same axis as earth's gravity?
Seems to me to be a good test of whether it's something acting on an external entity (QV vacuum, Rindler horizons, what have you) versus Shawyer's theory: Just change the axis of thrust in relation to the earth's gravity. If there is an acceleration related behavior per Shawyer then you would see a drop in Q in the vertical axis and not in the horizontal axis. All without the complexity of having to have actual movement. (assuming you could keep everything else the same of course).
-
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html)
Dave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot.
I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from.
Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
As a former test engineer at a test and measurement company, I find the measurement and statistics comments to be pretty good feedback. Can't speak to the RF or mechanical side of things at all.
If there is access to the raw data for the graphs, I'd be happy to try and calculate some of the items they are requesting. (e.g. the time ticks issue, "Don't "see", compute the correlations between your data and the model to prove it.")
Given your time, budget, an political constraints it's good start. Thanks!
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
-
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html)
Dave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot.
I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from.
Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained.
I agree but today's reality is far more risk adverse imho. Look at those unwilling to entertain anything other than reaction mass research. Fear drives research imo far more than the possibilities of payoff if successful. Reasons are many including tighter budgets yet if research is deemed to be socially responsible, big bucks can flow, I.e. climate research. Trying something risky with a high potential of failure as the moonshot was in JFK's day has been lost. I'm sure interstellar think tanks will continue to collect funds without a charter to produce results other than paperwork, but someone will become zephraim Cochrane, just don't know how many centuries that will take.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.
Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.
Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.
Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.
Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.
Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
-
...but someone will become zephraim Cochrane, just don't know how many centuries that will take.
So, get off your butt Zephraim! ;) I think it will be sooner rather than later.
Given what has happened in our lives, our grand kids may vacation on Mars when they turn 50. Good tanning; low cancer risk (I hope).
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
I think the EW paper is the best piece of research on the EmDrive that we have seen to date. Being overly critical of every paragraph is time consuming and slows down progress. It is what it is. Risk taking and not-knowing are what drives the ball forward. IMO, EW did a great job, better than anyone else has done at trying to resolve potential errors.
We have a saying down south, 'doing the hard yards' which is about proving yourself as a worthy worker. The 2016 EW paper is a step on that road but if any of you think that we are even a quarter of the way to proving ourselves, then you are sadly mistaken.
I will gladly bet my life that the emdrive works, but it is my life to spend. If you want the big chunk of tax payer dolla that will keep us ahead of the kind of competition that wont share it with us, then you all must re-double your efforts. EW excluded, they are already pulling their weight.
Go ahead, criticize every word, I wish that I could get some of that negative attention. Dr Rodal is the only one to find a flaw in my work and it has been very helpful indeed. Please everyone, find the flaws because that really is how we make progress.
-
...
Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) and
the E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ... ;)
Well, I think you have these the wrong way about.
E field measures depth into dilation, B field measures directional distortion of that dilation due to asymmetry of local charges. :-)
JMN..
-
If I may reference the gun in the box experiment once again, this time using standard recoil and instead annihilating, or removing the final effect of, the bullet.
If provisions are made for a very lightweight elongated box, for example, and standard recoil, it would seem that the container accelerates. Acceleration is imparted to the gun and container immediately and of course prior to being halted by the impact of the projectile.
-
...
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
I'm using the newest version of ANSYS HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd.
I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output
Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.
-
If I may reference the gun in the box experiment once again, this time using standard recoil and instead annihilating, or removing the final effect of, the bullet.
If provisions are made for a very lightweight elongated box, for example, and standard recoil, it would seem that the container accelerates. Acceleration is imparted to the gun and container immediately and of course prior to being halted by the impact of the projectile.
That's true, unfortunately by looking a little deeper you note that after firing, the momentum of the bullet is equal and opposite the momentum of the container. The center of mass of the container sans bullet does move, and the center of mass of the bullet sans container does move. However, after the bullet strikes the end of the container and stops moving relative to the container, you will note that the center of mass of the bullet plus container system has not moved. Yes the ends of the container are displaced but if you were to move the bullet back to the gun, the ends would move back to the starting point. That is because momentum is linear with velocity. If you move the bullet quickly, as in firing it from a gun there is little time for the container to displace, but if you move it back quickly you get the equal and opposite displacement arriving at the starting condition. If you move the bullet back slowly, the container is displaced at a lower velocity over a longer time and once the bullet reaches the gun you again arrive at the starting condition with no displacement of the center of mass of the system.
You can work this out using mv =MV which is the conservation of momentum law with lower case being the bullet and upper case being the container. Plug in values of convenience and use displacement = initial velocity + velocity times time. Use the initial center of mass as the reference point, initial velocity zero, calculate and add up the displacements. The round trip for the bullet will give zero displacement for the container.
-
...
Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) and
the E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ... ;)
Well, I think you have these the wrong way about.
E field measures depth into dilation, B field measures directional distortion of that dilation due to asymmetry of local charges. :-)
JMN..
Spupeng7:
This description of E and B comes directly from my model of an EM wave defined as a travelling wave on the variable of the medium, the variable being the rate of the time process. This description follows exactly the rules of induction. We may have come to believe that “Time” was just a convenient metric provided to us freely for us to adorn our graphics... The time process is the actor, not a spectator!
my edit: I'm not helping..
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
-
...
Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) and
the E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ... ;)
Well, I think you have these the wrong way about.
E field measures depth into dilation, B field measures directional distortion of that dilation due to asymmetry of local charges. :-)
JMN..
Spupeng7:
This description of E and B comes directly from my model of an EM wave defined as a travelling wave on the variable of the medium, the variable being the rate of the time process. This description follows exactly the rules of induction. We may have come to believe that “Time” was just a convenient metric provided to us freely for us to adorn our graphics... The time process is the actor, not a spectator!
SeeShell: Why the funding problem...? (O.K Mods; stand down!) C’mon! Are we really that naive? Is this here the “don’t think, shut up and calculate” motto? I have watched the starry sky many nights with a Smith & Wesson Star Tron night scope. I have witnessed “those guys” zipping across the sky, form horizon to horizon, in 5 seconds flat! .... and maneuver a few more weird trajectories...(If I know,... others know re: funding) Down here we are inching our way to micro-newtons ... We are not playing in the right field! (pun)
IMO we have to bring the experiment to the very edge of our Planck universe ... where neutrinos live and our physics changes. .... blanked out.... only way they could do what they did is by moving everything to the edge of our Planck universe; either h + x or h – x.
M.LeBel,
I hope I'm playing in the right field, working very hard to get at least somewhere. As far as what you have seen in things zipping around the night sky with your Smith & Wesson Star Tron night scope, could be their funding is better than mine, or they have bigger brains. :o
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_1luLRXKoJM8/SnP0ySm6-UI/AAAAAAAAZ2s/pafokgItBbc/4MartianAmbassador.jpg)
Best,
Shell
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
TT, specific to the test apparatus part of the question.
First, I would ensure that the air bearing had clean dry air supplied to it. You would definitely need an oil separator if you were not using an oiless compressor. You would follow up the output with a 50 foot length of copper tubing coiled inside a tub of water at room temperature. This is for heat exchanging purposes to ensure the heat of compression was partly eliminated. Lastly, I would follow with two air regulators. The first being an inexpensive one to filter out pressure changes as the compressor cycles on and off. The second being an expensive precision regulator to hold to a fraction of a psi. If you are using bottled nitrogen I would still use the heat exchanger to compensate for the cooling from expansion.
The air bearing would be placed on a purpose built three legged mounting stand (no cobbled 80/20 or optical breadboard components for this part). This would all rest on a concrete floor of reasonable thickness and good soil underlayment. If using a flat bearing combined with a cylindrical bearing, the top of the air bearing would need to be flat enough to support leveling to 0.0005”/ft and that is also the target value for the final level. Walking around on the concrete floor while leveling should not affect the bubble’s position. If using a hemisphere. You would want to maintain level but not as stringent. For the hemisphere, maintaining the vertical CG below the spherical center is required. For either bearing keeping the horizontal CG coincident with the axis of rotation is strongly advised.
The room would be temperature controlled and free of drafts. A way to shut the HVAC off during tests is important. A waiting period for the HVAC convection to settle is advised.
A 30 frame per second camera mounted directly above and looking straight down on the experiment is wholly necessary. 30 fps has been proven fast enough for this kind of work although a CCD is preferred over a CMOS sensor that has a rolling shutter. A rolling shutter would be useless. Camera and video capture system must not lose its time base by dropping frames as this would corrupt the calculations. Having angular markings every 10 degree around the bearing and a stationary pointer would allow us to measure position often enough to be useful. Three full rotations during a testing run is the minimum for good analysis. Less than one rotation appropriately brings on questions as to the test's validity; in fact, it negates the apparent validity in my mind. A full rotation would help us evaluate/eliminate level vs. CG errors, interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, and other experimental problems. Several rotations lets us see if we’ve reached a terminal angular velocity where thrust torque matches profile drag.
A reasonable estimate of the mass moment of inertia of the entire rotating section would allow us to calculate torque and thus force. I can help with this estimate when the time comes. As for data, the angular position verses time stamp, and MOI is all that is needed to do the major math. A side view FLIR, other cameras, room temperature might be useful to analyze if things got weird.
However, before running actual tests we would want to characterize the system with the camera running. First, with just the bare bearing (nothing mounted) we would want to measure both motoring (Paul called it swirl) torque and coulomb friction. These let us know that you have a good bearing or need to compensate. Basically, from stopped, the bearing is allowed to accelerate on its own; it might take hours. It will accelerate if it is not a perfect bearing and if motoring torque is greater than coulomb friction. The second test of the still bare bearing would feature you inducing a CW spin by hand and letting it decay on its own, then repeating this CCW. This might take 10 minutes to an hour for data in each direction. From this we can confirm the motoring and calculate coulomb. I have done this for twenty air bearings when required by our customers. I will scrub a spreadsheet and make it and myself available when the time comes. Finally, with the full apparatus mounted, we would repeat the hand induced CW and CCW spins and process in the same spreadsheet to get the profile drag components, coulomb, viscous, and turbulence of the all-up experiment.
I have used all these techniques before so none are new to me. What you require (including MOI and CG) knowledge and control are all part of what we have done for customers and for building our own corporate knowledgebase. www.space-electronics.com Count me as someone who wants dearly to see this work while maintaining a healthy skepticism; mainly because I see experiments that simply have not measured up. That said I am more than willing to help where I can.
Will be using a magnetic thrust bearing.
External sensor will pulse count evenly spaced optical marks around the circumference of the rotary table so that pulse to pulse velocity can be resolved to better than 100:1 at 60 rpm.
From earlier experiments, I know the EmDrive works when measuring static force generation, small to big, as also measured and reported by NASA and Roger.
What I don't know is
1) direction of the Reaction accelerative force vs what will be measured with a static scale based test rig
2) value of the accelerative force vs what will be measure in a static scale based test rig
3) now acceleration alters or not the cavity Q
4) how acceleration and KE gain alters or not the load that the Li Ion batteries see
I have developed a method to directly measure Q from the rise time of the forward power pulse. This gives the ability to measure and record cavity Q on each and every pulse of Rf energy that fills the cavity. It is because of this technique that allows non accelerative and accelerative Q to be measured. Using other Q measurement techniques that require the freq to be varied, would not be able to do this dynamic Q measurement, which I see as at the heart of the experiment.
-
Perhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.
This is a problem that has to be overcome regardless no? What solution would you recommend? Argon environment? Seems like we have to work this out if this unit is to, quite literally, fly.
According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas SF6 can get you 3 - 6 times 30kv/cm breakdown for air, and freon up to 17, pressurized.
From another article I read somewhere, microwave fields can be near double DC or lower frequency fields, because charges don't have time to accelerate.
We need to have someone give us the impedance/fields in the frustrum to know where arcing is likely, and the most power that it can be expected to handle.
From articles I glanced at a couple weeks ago after TT spoke as though he was thinking superconducting cavities with Q's > 10^7 could handle a kilowatt input (dissipated), I saw (IIRC) 100 - 500 MW peak power (not dissipated, stored energy) in hard vacuum. Do a web search for "superconducting cavity accelerator "breakdown voltage"".
New technology will apparently need to be developed to handle high field strengths.
I just wanted to point out, that some engineer at L-3 may have had their manager snicker at them when they asked about putting 100KW into a cavity with Q > 1000. I don't know. There are limits.
The plan is to pump 35W Rf into the YBCO version of the Flight Thruster.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.
Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.
Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.
Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.
Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.
Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
So you believe that Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics and then engineered his EmDrive of today from the physics?
While it is true that experiments are being done all of the time by many working on the EmDrive concept, there is at this time no credible mechanism of physics known that results in force. The experiments are experiments tinkering with the engineering design, in large part as a function of trial and error. All working toward producing a drive that will produce enough thrust that the physics (physical mechanism) that produces the thrust can be explored.
Only for those who believe that Shawyer's theory of operation is correct, does your statement hold true. But only to the extent that Shawyer's theory of the science is a true and accurate description of the underlying mechanism...
Look at the historical series of frustums and power supply designs, from Shawyer, to Yang, to EW and several DIYs, and what you will find is a series of engineering improvements and many just starting from scratch with a rather vague idea, of what went before.
The only solid science or scientific tools employed in the designs right now, the simulation software.., all say there should be no net thrust.., and yet it moves.
There seem to be a couple of theories that may be getting close to both describing what is observed, predicting better designs and suggesting a mechanism of operation. But not quite there yet.
I do know what experimental physics is, and so far the credible physics involved seems to be saying an EmDrive should not produce thrust, and yet again.., it moves.
Unless someone is withholding results with undeniable thrusts, we're still working on engineering a functional drive, that can be examined and tested to determine the scientific mechanism of operation.
Even the progression of Shawyer's various drives look more like a series of engineering improvements than the realization of any credible underlying scientific mechanism of operation.
There is a difference between experiments refining an engineering design and scientific experiments based on an underlying scientific theory/model. The first aims to improve or maybe just prove a functional result like thrust, while the second is both designed to meet the requirements of and prove the accuracy of a theoretical model.
We are all, speculating about theory, but so far.., and again unless someone is holding back.., we are still working our way through engineering designs, with the hope of achieving something new and wonderful.
-
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. :)
Todd,
due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. :)
Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.
If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.
I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.
Using standard microwave engineering equations for guide wavelength vs mode vs freq vs diameter, the increasing guide wavelength can be plotted big to small end. As seen, the plot is not linear and the guide wavelength starts to get really only as the small end approached cutoff.
Then using Cullen's equation for radiation pressure vs guide wavelength, the decreasing radiation pressure can also be plotted and again is is not linear with decreasing diameter not is it linear with increasing guide wavelength.
While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
Sure they do! What you're missing TT, is that while the "guide wavelength" has this behavior per your graph, the wavelength orthogonal to it, reflecting off the sidewalls would have the opposite graph, where the radiation pressure goes up as the wavelength goes down, in the same manner. Shawyer has a "logical" reason why there is no force on the sidewall, but his logic is flawed and not based soundly on Maxwell's equations. There is most certainly pressure on the sidewalls, and that pressure increases toward the small end. Swap blue and purple on your graph.
Work out the length axial component of the radiation pressure on the side walls. Radiation pressure reduces per the cosine of the incident angle.
This why Roger likes long frustums as the cone angle is smaller and thus so too is the resultant axial rad pressure on the side walls.
Roger told me in a properly designed frustum, the axial rad pressure on the side walls is there but has little effect.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
-
...snip...
The doorway to a levitator is again open.
YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.
Phil
Since by GR in the frame of the frustum it can't tell the difference between actual acceleration or being in a gravity field, shouldn't you experience the drop in Q if you try to accelerate in the same axis as earth's gravity?
Seems to me to be a good test of whether it's something acting on an external entity (QV vacuum, Rindler horizons, what have you) versus Shawyer's theory: Just change the axis of thrust in relation to the earth's gravity. If there is an acceleration related behavior per Shawyer then you would see a drop in Q in the vertical axis and not in the horizontal axis. All without the complexity of having to have actual movement. (assuming you could keep everything else the same of course).
Measuring Q drop or not from axial acceleration is what I'm building my rotary test rig to determine.
Plus measuring any load change or not on the Li Ion batteries.
-
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html)
Dave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot.
I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from.
Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained.
I agree but today's reality is far more risk adverse imho. Look at those unwilling to entertain anything other than reaction mass research. Fear drives research imo far more than the possibilities of payoff if successful. Reasons are many including tighter budgets yet if research is deemed to be socially responsible, big bucks can flow, I.e. climate research. Trying something risky with a high potential of failure as the moonshot was in JFK's day has been lost. I'm sure interstellar think tanks will continue to collect funds without a charter to produce results other than paperwork, but someone will become Zephraim Cochrane, just don't know how many centuries that will take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers_flights_of_1909
Later that day Wilbur took off again, at 10:18 AM.
He flew over the ocean liner Lusitania and a flotilla of other watercraft on hand for the Hudson-Fulton celebration, many blowing their horns and tooting their whistles when the Flyer appeared overhead.
As Wilbur flew toward the Statue of Liberty, many onlookers feared he would crash into it, but he skillfully circled the statue as planned.
This flight caused a sensation in the press and became an iconic event, despite lasting less than five minutes.
Could be:
As the BBC streamed it live around the world, Roger Shawyer handed Gilo Cardozo a black device, later known to be an "EmDrive Thruster", which he strapped to his back, then harnessed himself to a paraglider and after a short run down the path, very silently rose majestically into the air.
With great skill Gilo flew up and down the Thames and finally did a Victory lap around Westminster before returning to land in front of the BBC cameras.
What a way to make great history and fill Gilo's order books.
Phil
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.
Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.
Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.
Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.
Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.
Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
So you believe that Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics and then engineered his EmDrive of today from the physics?
While it is true that experiments are being done all of the time by many working on the EmDrive concept, there is at this time no credible mechanism of physics known that results in force. The experiments are experiments tinkering with the engineering design, in large part as a function of trial and error. All working toward producing a drive that will produce enough thrust that the physics (physical mechanism) that produces the thrust can be explored.
Only for those who believe that Shawyer's theory of operation is correct, does your statement hold true. But only to the extent that Shawyer's theory of the science is a true and accurate description of the underlying mechanism...
Look at the historical series of frustums and power supply designs, from Shawyer, to Yang, to EW and several DIYs, and what you will find is a series of engineering improvements and many just starting from scratch with a rather vague idea, of what went before.
The only solid science or scientific tools employed in the designs right now, the simulation software.., all say there should be no net thrust.., and yet it moves.
There seem to be a couple of theories that may be getting close to both describing what is observed, predicting better designs and suggesting a mechanism of operation. But not quite there yet.
I do know what experimental physics is, and so far the credible physics involved seems to be saying an EmDrive should not produce thrust, and yet again.., it moves.
Unless someone is withholding results with undeniable thrusts, we're still working on engineering a functional drive, that can be examined and tested to determine the scientific mechanism of operation.
Even the progression of Shawyer's various drives look more like a series of engineering improvements than the realization of any credible underlying scientific mechanism of operation.
There is a difference between experiments refining an engineering design and scientific experiments based on an underlying scientific theory/model. The first aims to improve or maybe just prove a functional result like thrust, while the second is both designed to meet the requirements of and prove the accuracy of a theoretical model.
We are all, speculating about theory, but so far.., and again unless someone is holding back.., we are still working our way through engineering designs, with the hope of achieving something new and wonderful.
Designing resonant cavities is based on the utilisation of existing microwave physics.
EW and others have explored the modes available for a fixed design and the various tools such as COMSOL, FEKO, X-Rays, Dr Rodal, my and others generally agree to a few percent.
So what is happening inside the cavity, as far as being able to predict the modes, resonance and Q is not unknown physics.
From what I can determine Roger extended that understanding and found that if he applied the equations of Cullen to the others, then he could predict the measured force.
So to be clear all that Roger is saying is that take existing microwave physics and add Cullen to be able to predict the force that is being generated.
Roger has also claimed that he has determined CofM is conserved via using short Rf pulses and have shown experimentally that the static force direction is opposite to the accelerative force direction.
I plan to experimentally determine
1) if the cavity Q does drop or not during acceleration?
2) if the load seen by the Li Ion batteries alters of not during acceleration?
3) if when using the same EmDrive, the force direction alters 180 deg from static to accelerative testing?
4) if the static and accelerative forces are the same?
5) if Q does drop during acceleration, what is the calculated amount of momentum loss and what is the calculated momentum gain of the accelerating mass?
6) if Li Ion battery pack energy load does alter during acceleration, what is the calculated increase in energy drain and how does that relate to the accelerating mass increased KE gain?
I believe that this experimental data will form and guide the further understanding of any theory as it will need to be able to explain the above results.
Predicted thruster force generation at 100W Rf is 40-50mN or 4 to 5 grams of force. So while not massive, is it a long way above EW's 0.1mN of force, which should assist and bring the collected data well above the noise level.
-
Consider the data:
EW, non resonant dielectric, small end, Cu frustum, static force, torsion pendulum, direction: small << big
EW, no dielectric, Cu frustum, static force torsion pendulum, direction: small >> big
Taking the dielectric out reversed the static force direction.
EW, no dielectric, Al frustum, static force, balance beam, direction: small >> big
SPR, resonant dielectric, small end, Cu frustum, static force, scale, direction: small >> big
SPR, resonant dielectric, small end, Cu frustum, static force, balance beam, direction: small >> big
SPR, no dielectric, Cu frustum, static force, scale, direction: small >> big
Phil, no dielectric, Cu frustum, static force, scale, direction: small >> big
Any theory needs to be able to explain the measured static force small to big and the direction reversal when the dielectric was removed.
-
EW, non resonant dielectric
What nonsense are you talking about? Their experiment was in resonance.
Also, for all of the torsion pendulums and some of the other experiments you call "static" involve measurements, the measurement was of the cavity moving. And really when you break it down, what scales measure is the small displacement from the force of the object pushing on it. Plus if you are going to call torsion pendulums static, then you also have to do so for the others (like some on this forum) who have torsion pendulums that measured a force towards the small end. If you actually consider the data, you will realize that what you are saying is inconsistent.
-
EW, non resonant dielectric
What nonsense are you talking about? Their experiment was in resonance.
Also, for all of the torsion pendulums and some of the other experiments you call "static" involve measurements, the measurement was of the cavity moving. And really when you break it down, what scales measure is the small displacement from the force of the object pushing on it. Plus if you are going to call torsion pendulums static, then you also have to do so for the others (like some on this forum) who have torsion pendulums that measured a force towards the small end. If you actually consider the data, you will realize that what you are saying is inconsistent.
The dielectric EW used at the small end of their Cu frustum was not internally resonant nor was its axial position carefully adjusted so there was phase coherence between the EmWaves inside the resonator and those inside the frustum.
SPR, in the Experimental EmDrive, used a commercial ceramic 2.45GHz dielectric resonator with a very high Q.
EW used 2 discs of polyethylene.
Very different situation.
Ok yes there is a VERY small movement in ANY static force measurement system. And some time the EmDrive in TM212 seems to struggle to generate a clean Thrust impulse force as EW recorded with their torsion pendulum.
With the EW EmDrive sometime the time needed to generate the Thrust force is longer than the thermal changes and then at other times, their EmDrive delivers a very strong and fast impulse force.
Here are the data for the TE012 dielectric and non dielectric tests NASA conducted:
1) TE012 with small end dielectric: 2.0mN/kW, force direction big to small
2) TE012 with NO dielectric: 3.85mN/kW, force direction small to big (supports Roger's comments that dielectrics reduce the force generated)
Please note that using TE012 mode, especially without the small end dielectric, the force impulse is very fast, as fast as that of the electrostatic calibration system.
Just maybe if NASA had used TE012 excitation, without a dielectric, all the comments about the slow force generation in TM212 mode would have been eliminated?
Please note the force direction arrows on the images.
-
EW, non resonant dielectric
What nonsense are you talking about? Their experiment was in resonance.
Also, for all of the torsion pendulums and some of the other experiments you call "static" involve measurements, the measurement was of the cavity moving. And really when you break it down, what scales measure is the small displacement from the force of the object pushing on it. Plus if you are going to call torsion pendulums static, then you also have to do so for the others (like some on this forum) who have torsion pendulums that measured a force towards the small end. If you actually consider the data, you will realize that what you are saying is inconsistent.
The dielectric EW used at the small end of their Cu frustum was not internally resonant nor was its axial position carefully adjusted so there was phase coherence between the EmWaves inside the resonator and those inside the frustum.
SPR, in the Experimental EmDrive, used a commercial ceramic 2.45GHz dielectric resonator with a very high Q.
EW used 2 discs of polyethylene.
Very different situation.
Ok yes there is a VERY small movement in ANY static force measurement system. And some time the EmDrive in TM212 seems to struggle to generate a clean Thrust impulse force as EW recorded with their torsion pendulum.
With the EW EmDrive sometime the time needed to generate the Thrust force is longer than the thermal changes and then at other times, their EmDrive delivers a very strong and fast impulse force.
Here are the data for the TE012 dielectric and non dielectric tests NASA conducted:
1) TE012 with small end dielectric: 2.0mN/kW, force direction big to small
2) TE012 with NO dielectric: 3.85mN/kW, force direction small to big (supports Roger's comments that dielectrics reduce the force generated)
Please note that using TE012 mode, especially without the small end dielectric, the force impulse is very fast, as fast as that of the electrostatic calibration system.
Just maybe if NASA had used TE012 excitation, without a dielectric, all the comments about the slow force generation in TM212 mode would have been eliminated?
Please note the force direction arrows on the images.
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.
Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM,HEM, HE/EH mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( HE/EH modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )
When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard.
Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
-
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.
Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )
When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard.
Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
As the Roger's report as attached.
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38.
An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source.
A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.
A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher.
Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.
An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure.
Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters.
Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.
If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.
-
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.
Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )
When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard.
Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
As the Roger's report as attached.
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38.
An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source.
A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.
A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher.
Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.
An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure.
Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters.
Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.
If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.
In theory, wouldn't a dielectric cause the EM field to be manipulated? I.e. would the dielectric make the majority of the EM waves be nearer to the dielectric medium while active?
-
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.
Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )
When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard.
Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
As the Roger's report as attached.
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38.
An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source.
A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.
A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher.
Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.
An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure.
Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters.
Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.
If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.
In theory, wouldn't a dielectric cause the EM field to be manipulated? I.e. would the dielectric make the majority of the EM waves be nearer to the dielectric medium while active?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414665#msg1414665
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38203.0;attach=1054896;image)
-
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.
Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )
When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard.
Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
As the Roger's report as attached.
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38.
An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source.
A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.
A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher.
Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.
An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure.
Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters.
Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.
If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.
In theory, wouldn't a dielectric cause the EM field to be manipulated? I.e. would the dielectric make the majority of the EM waves be nearer to the dielectric medium while active?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414665#msg1414665
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38203.0;attach=1054896;image)
Thank you Xray. That may support my theory in post #3245 as to why the EM Drive works while resolving the observations Traveller brought up. May also provide a better design to increase thrust. Will chew on this some more.
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children. We don't care about hurt feelings, we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.
We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part. We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there. There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.
We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear. President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.
Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care. We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.
One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
That one is 8.5" long, 8" Dia.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FG2C88E?psc=1
This one is 8" long, 13" Dia.
I don't know the small dia. for either of them, but I purchased the longer one. I'll let you know when it arrives. :)
Edit: Now here's a BIG one!
https://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/19-inch-Brushed-Stainless-Steel-Double-wall-Insulated-Beverage-Tub/9817526/product.html?recset=9e27d52f-2db8-495f-92b9-5911a5bd3e5a&refccid=LEDI4ODFOGL3FSSDK5WZWLL5WE&recalg=872,873,839&recidx=2 (https://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/19-inch-Brushed-Stainless-Steel-Double-wall-Insulated-Beverage-Tub/9817526/product.html?recset=9e27d52f-2db8-495f-92b9-5911a5bd3e5a&refccid=LEDI4ODFOGL3FSSDK5WZWLL5WE&recalg=872,873,839&recidx=2)
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children. We don't care about hurt feelings, we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.
We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part. We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there. There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.
We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear. President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.
Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care. We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.
One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
That one is 8.5" long, 8" Dia.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FG2C88E?psc=1
This one is 8" long, 13" Dia.
I don't know the small dia. for either of them, but I purchased the longer one. I'll let you know when it arrives. :)
Need to get this T-Shirt.
https://www.amazon.com/frustum-T-Shirt-Mens-Black-Large/dp/B01NA773X1/ref=sr_1_1?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1480171386&sr=8-1&keywords=large+frustum
OR have it made.
http://www.cmspinning.com/metal-cone-spinning.html
-
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.
Can tell you Paul March, Paul Kocyla, Dave, Shell, Monomorphic, Roger, Gilo, myself and others share one common goal and that is to get our backsides off this rock by other than a continuous explosion to Earth side.
What now seems clear is cavities with a high enough Q can be built to enable specific force generation of > 200kg/kW, which is high enough to enable demo levitating EmDrives to be built. Not saying it will be easy or quick or low cost as for sure there will be engineering issues to solve.
It will happen and I expect Roger & Gilo to launch the 1st commercial products in 2017, after which every existing provider of propulsion devices will follow their lead.
Real issue it this could have happened in 2002, 14 years ago.
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children. We don't care about hurt feelings, we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.
We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part. We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there. There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.
We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear. President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.
Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care. We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.
One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.
We, we, we, we, wee....
I think you are barking at the wrong tree. At this forum we have technical and scientific discussions. And we like that. We DO care. That's what is needed to get things done.
And no, I don't get taxpayers money for that, certainly not American taxpayers dollars. So I am not really moved by your misunderstanding of how science works and your spoiled citizens attitude.
=;
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Addendum: Find attached four slides with my contribution to the Glenn test program that never materialized.
Best, Paul M.
-
We, we, we, we, wee....
I think you are barking at the wrong tree. At this forum we have technical and scientific discussions. And we like that. We DO care. That's what is needed to get things done.
And no, I don't get taxpayers money for that, certainly not American taxpayers dollars. So I am not really moved by your misunderstanding of science works and your spoiled citizens attitude.
=;
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer, and yes I know that we do not fund you and that you think we are spoiled. It is that we the average citizen, from anywhere in the world, do not care. We will push our money and funding to where we want to be, not where scientists want it to go. It is not a matter of technologies, we already have them. What is lacking is will, something the spoiled citizens like me understand all too well. We will push it where we want to go, and any institutions not getting us there will be left behind. This is something that the people working this forum understand, and why the massive number of people following this forum back these citizen scientists 100% and with all our hopes. Once we get frustrated and hopeless, watch what happens to government funded budgets. We are used to accomplishing things, we are impatient after 60yrs of nothing, and want to move on. We do not care how.
We should have 100,000 people in space by this point, not 100, accessing space resources, expanding through the Kuiper belt, forming companies and raising children out there, in the next frontier.
Back to lurking...
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
Thanks for explaining why the testing at NASA Glenn never happened. Would have thought that if EW's JSC management wanted / needed the Glenn test, it would have happened.
Also not nice of NASA Glenn to alter the agreed deal. Did Glenn give any reason why they backed out of the original 50-50 agreement?
Nice images in the addendum. Seems you had it all packed up and ready to ship to Glenn, then they pulled the plug on the deal. Did Glenn know the EW budget couldn't stretch to paying all the costs?
Phil
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.
Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.
Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.
Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.
Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.
Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that. You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement. Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics. That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms. They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Addendum: Find attached four slides with my contribution to the Glenn test program that never materialized.
Best, Paul M.
I always wondered why you didn't just do an end run around everyone by not trying to show a minute force at low power with incredible difficulty but trying to tinker around to get a big enough effect no one could refute?
-
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Wonder what that has cost in regard to ignored new effects, that "can't be real as they oppose theory".
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
Thanks for explaining why the testing at NASA Glenn never happened. Would have thought that if EW's JSC management wanted / needed the Glenn test, it would have happened.
Also not nice of NASA Glenn to alter the agreed deal. Did Glenn give any reason why they backed out of the original 50-50 agreement?
Phil
Phil:
What I was told by Dr. White at the time was that after the NASA/Glenn senior management reviewed the deal between the two field centers, they decided that Glenn was not being reimbursed at a rate that was commensurate with their expenses. In other words they treated the EW test program at Glenn, not as partners in a NASA wide test program, but instead as Glenn performing services to the commercial interest. I.e., they didn't want to put any skin in the game from their own reserves.
Best, Paul M.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
Thanks for explaining why the testing at NASA Glenn never happened. Would have thought that if EW's JSC management wanted / needed the Glenn test, it would have happened.
Also not nice of NASA Glenn to alter the agreed deal. Did Glenn give any reason why they backed out of the original 50-50 agreement?
Phil
Phil:
What I was told by Dr. White at the time was that after the NASA/Glenn senior management reviewed the deal between the two field centers, they decided that Glenn was not being reimbursed at a rate that was commensurate with their expenses. In other words they treated the EW test program at Glenn, not as partners in a NASA wide test program, but instead as Glenn performing services to the commercial interest. I.e., they didn't want to put any skin in the game from their own reserves.
Best, Paul M.
Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may refkect bsdly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-validate-imposible-space-drive-word/#.WDmvl1705PE
Marc Millis, who for years directed the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, calls things like the EmDrive “idea zombies,” because they keep returning even when objective evaluations do not back up their claims. Meanwhile there are other, much more promising experimental spaceflight technologies (such as laser lightsails and electromagnetic rockets) that deserve a lot more support than they are getting.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.
Maybe Paul can comment?
Phil:
Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)
Addendum: Find attached four slides with my contribution to the Glenn test program that never materialized.
Best, Paul M.
I always wondered why you didn't just do an end run around everyone by not trying to show a minute force at low power with incredible difficulty but trying to tinker around to get a big enough effect no one could refute?
Bob:
Once I had a sort of repeatable ~50uN force signal using the EW copper frustum, Dr. White was very reluctant for me to look for the two birds in the bush when he already had the one bird in our hands using the EW copper frustum. In other words he froze the design with all its warts, so he could continue the test campaigns we were performing at the time. Thus we would have had to build a second test copper frustum article with all the proposed upgrades like using spherical endcaps, then testing each upgrade, but we never had the budget or time to pursue that course of action.
Best, Paul M.
-
Phil:
"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"
Yes on all counts.
Best, Paul M.
-
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Wonder what that has cost in regard to ignored new effects, that "can't be real as they oppose theory".
Mills' hydrino theory and experimental reality has been struggling for mainstream acceptance for 25 years. It posits energy states below what is considered the "ground state" for hydrogen. The data is real, published in peer reviewed journals, the process is powerful, 100X burning hydrogen, and promises a real solution to climate change and energy as society can get most of its energy from water. Greater acceptance would speed deployment and begin to reverse the effects of fossil fuel use.
It would also be a great energy source for lift vehicles derived by the EmDrive operating locally such as earth to orbit or the Moon or Mars without huge and massive solar panels.
-
Phil:
"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"
Yes on all counts.
Best, Paul M.
Paul Gilster at Centauri Dreams has asked Millis to look at the new NASA results for his site.
-
Phil:
"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"
Yes on all counts.
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
As I read your posts back then the new paper was dependent on the Glenn in vac tests being successful. It would seem the Glenn knockback could stop the new paper being released.
What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process? Something significant must have happended to change EW's JSC managers minds?
-
Phil:
"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"
Yes on all counts.
Best, Paul M.
Paul Gilster at Centauri Dreams has asked Millis to look at the new NASA results for his site.
Will be very interested to read Millis' reply.
Please keep us informed.
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
TT, specific to the test apparatus part of the question.
First, I would ensure that the air bearing had clean dry air supplied to it. You would definitely need an oil separator if you were not using an oiless compressor. You would follow up the output with a 50 foot length of copper tubing coiled inside a tub of water at room temperature. This is for heat exchanging purposes to ensure the heat of compression was partly eliminated. Lastly, I would follow with two air regulators. The first being an inexpensive one to filter out pressure changes as the compressor cycles on and off. The second being an expensive precision regulator to hold to a fraction of a psi. If you are using bottled nitrogen I would still use the heat exchanger to compensate for the cooling from expansion.
The air bearing would be placed on a purpose built three legged mounting stand (no cobbled 80/20 or optical breadboard components for this part). This would all rest on a concrete floor of reasonable thickness and good soil underlayment. If using a flat bearing combined with a cylindrical bearing, the top of the air bearing would need to be flat enough to support leveling to 0.0005”/ft and that is also the target value for the final level. Walking around on the concrete floor while leveling should not affect the bubble’s position. If using a hemisphere. You would want to maintain level but not as stringent. For the hemisphere, maintaining the vertical CG below the spherical center is required. For either bearing keeping the horizontal CG coincident with the axis of rotation is strongly advised.
The room would be temperature controlled and free of drafts. A way to shut the HVAC off during tests is important. A waiting period for the HVAC convection to settle is advised.
A 30 frame per second camera mounted directly above and looking straight down on the experiment is wholly necessary. 30 fps has been proven fast enough for this kind of work although a CCD is preferred over a CMOS sensor that has a rolling shutter. A rolling shutter would be useless. Camera and video capture system must not lose its time base by dropping frames as this would corrupt the calculations. Having angular markings every 10 degree around the bearing and a stationary pointer would allow us to measure position often enough to be useful. Three full rotations during a testing run is the minimum for good analysis. Less than one rotation appropriately brings on questions as to the test's validity; in fact, it negates the apparent validity in my mind. A full rotation would help us evaluate/eliminate level vs. CG errors, interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, and other experimental problems. Several rotations lets us see if we’ve reached a terminal angular velocity where thrust torque matches profile drag.
A reasonable estimate of the mass moment of inertia of the entire rotating section would allow us to calculate torque and thus force. I can help with this estimate when the time comes. As for data, the angular position verses time stamp, and MOI is all that is needed to do the major math. A side view FLIR, other cameras, room temperature might be useful to analyze if things got weird.
However, before running actual tests we would want to characterize the system with the camera running. First, with just the bare bearing (nothing mounted) we would want to measure both motoring (Paul called it swirl) torque and coulomb friction. These let us know that you have a good bearing or need to compensate. Basically, from stopped, the bearing is allowed to accelerate on its own; it might take hours. It will accelerate if it is not a perfect bearing and if motoring torque is greater than coulomb friction. The second test of the still bare bearing would feature you inducing a CW spin by hand and letting it decay on its own, then repeating this CCW. This might take 10 minutes to an hour for data in each direction. From this we can confirm the motoring and calculate coulomb. I have done this for twenty air bearings when required by our customers. I will scrub a spreadsheet and make it and myself available when the time comes. Finally, with the full apparatus mounted, we would repeat the hand induced CW and CCW spins and process in the same spreadsheet to get the profile drag components, coulomb, viscous, and turbulence of the all-up experiment.
I have used all these techniques before so none are new to me. What you require (including MOI and CG) knowledge and control are all part of what we have done for customers and for building our own corporate knowledgebase. www.space-electronics.com Count me as someone who wants dearly to see this work while maintaining a healthy skepticism; mainly because I see experiments that simply have not measured up. That said I am more than willing to help where I can.
Will be using a magnetic thrust bearing.
External sensor will pulse count evenly spaced optical marks around the circumference of the rotary table so that pulse to pulse velocity can be resolved to better than 100:1 at 60 rpm.
From earlier experiments, I know the EmDrive works when measuring static force generation, small to big, as also measured and reported by NASA and Roger.
What I don't know is
1) direction of the Reaction accelerative force vs what will be measured with a static scale based test rig
2) value of the accelerative force vs what will be measure in a static scale based test rig
3) now acceleration alters or not the cavity Q
4) how acceleration and KE gain alters or not the load that the Li Ion batteries see
I have developed a method to directly measure Q from the rise time of the forward power pulse. This gives the ability to measure and record cavity Q on each and every pulse of Rf energy that fills the cavity. It is because of this technique that allows non accelerative and accelerative Q to be measured. Using other Q measurement techniques that require the freq to be varied, would not be able to do this dynamic Q measurement, which I see as at the heart of the experiment.
TT, sorry about that. I keep confusing Shawyer's previous rotary experiment with your future experiment. So even given that you will use a magnetic bearing, please don't minimize the amount of system characterization. If you take my post and strike-through the first paragraph, the rest of the post still stands as sound practice. Since I am not familiar with magnetic bearing nuances/anomalies, and no one else has weighed in in the past regarding such, we data hounds would appreciate the rigor said characterization.
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
-
TT, sorry about that. I keep confusing Shawyer's previous rotary experiment with your future experiment. So even given that you will use a magnetic bearing, please don't minimize the amount of system characterization. If you take my post and strike-through the first paragraph, the rest of the post still stands as sound practice. Since I am not familiar with magnetic bearing nuances/anomalies, and no one else has weighed in in the past regarding such, we data hounds would appreciate the rigor said characterization.
Please understand I do really appreciate your and others feedback and will do what I can to incorporate the suggestions. Please also understand I know the EmDrive generates static forces small to big, from earlier experiments, so I don't need to prove to myself it works.
This champaign is about measuring or not if Q drops or not when acceleration starts, if power supply demand alters or not as acceleration starts and if it does alter what happens as angular velocity increases. Sort of biggie questions that need to be answered.
I mean if acceleration occurs, as I expect, and there is no Q drop nor increase in power consumption, then Roger's theory will fall and others may rise to replace it.
For me this is why this experiment will be done.
For sure when the experiment starts, will be very open to doing other measurements as other request.
-
It's a bit disheartening to learn about all the difficulties Paul and EW people faced and probably will continue to do so. But it is neither unexpected.
Seems the good disposition lasted as long as the institutional power hierarchies expected for them to finally disprove this and say "orthodoxy is safe. Good job!".
But given they dared to find something and actually publish their findings, making people start paying attention, that good disposition ended.
Seems like the hope of seeing this flourish will continue to be in the hands of people that simply refuse to conform to the official, safe version of things.
My wish here is that some of the things discussed will serve someone, somewhere to take the thrust well into the undeniable. Something no one will be able to brush off as experimental error.
Because science and progress sometimes needs to be whacked into our heads.
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
agreed. It sounds more like an anachronism : "we, the people against the establishment"
So... 19th century, begin 20th century even.... the birth period of modern democracy...
I'm getting flashes of revolting mobs in the street... :)
What it is really about is the tension field between "accountability" (or lack of) and "risk taking".
It is not easy maneuvering between the 2, especially, i presume, in a scientific environment where budgets are allocated according certain criteria.
If you are too much of a risk taker, it quickly becomes "irresponsibly wasted money".
If you're not a risk taker, you're too much of an accountant unwilling to venture into new (promising?) paths.
So whatever you do, as a manager of a high profile government company, you always get shot at.
You know, with hindsight, it is always easy to be a critic...
One thing is sure: not every path taken ends with a big success. In scientific research a lot of money is "wasted", but that is normal as you do not know the outcome beforehand. If you're not prepared to accept such risks, then you should not start with research in the first place...
-
Phil:
"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.
Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"
Yes on all counts.
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
As I read your posts back then the new paper was dependent on the Glenn in vac tests being successful. It would seem the Glenn knockback could stop the new paper being released.
What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process? Something significant must have happended to change EW's JSC managers minds?
Phil:
"What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process?"
First off, you have to understand that there is very little love lost between most NASA field centers including JSC and Glenn. The very fact that Glenn upper management changed their collective minds and went back on their initial 50%/50% funding agreement with JSC was enough for JSC management to tell Dr. White to push through his already submitted AIAA/JPP paper. To be fair though, I think JSC management had already told Dr. White to try to publish the EW's fall 2015 in-vacuum ICFTA test campaign in a peer reviewed journal whether Glenn participated or not. If Glenn had gone along with the initial test plan, that would have been the first independent validation test that would have come through Glenn instead of JSC and thus the fall 2015 in-vacuum test results would have been validated in an independent lab, but alas it was not to be. Probably for the best come to think of it, for PLL tuning of the ICFTA was problematic at best and it took considerable interactions on my part to keep it working. Now if we had the S11 digital resonant frequency tracker in place at that time, I think the consistency of the ICFTA test results would have been much better for all parties.
Best, Paul M.
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true.
The all is implicit when you use singular in the phrase "the American taxpayer". Also generalizations aren't generally true. ;) :P
The meat of your posts isn't really worth responding to, but the more general reactions of Americans to spaceflight currently is apathy (at least from my experience talking to non-enthusiasts), not all of your detailed opinions that you are projecting onto them.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Best, Paul M.
Best,
-
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
How come the calibration pulse during cooling didn't get swallowed? Yet the much larger emdrive signal disappears without a trace.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
Tub 1: Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2: Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"
What are the resonant frequencies?
Thanks TT
-
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
How come the calibration pulse during cooling didn't get swallowed? Yet the much larger emdrive signal disappears without a trace.
as58:
Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.
Best, Paul M.
-
as58:
Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.
Best, Paul M.
I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that you would expect the response to thrust from emdrive to be slower (or different in some other way) than response to a calibration pulse? And if so, how meaningful is the calibration pulse for calibration?
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.
-
The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.
How is that going to make any difference visible in those curves? Even with a Q of a million the decay timescale would be a tiny fraction of a second.
edit: with the numbers from the paper I get 1/e-folding time of ~13 us.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?
-
...
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
I'm using the newest version of ANSYS HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd.
I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output
Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.
OK great, I think some of these are already standard outputs. But many aren't so hopefully we can find some work arounds
To start, does a transient solution need to be computed for all of the time derivatives? Or can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?
How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?
Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity? If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?
What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?
Are we ultimately after momentum density?
-
as58:
Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.
Best, Paul M.
I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that you would expect the response to thrust from emdrive to be slower (or different in some other way) than response to a calibration pulse? And if so, how meaningful is the calibration pulse for calibration?
as58:
OK, let's try it this way. If you have an actuator piston that is pulling a pivoted arm through a very stiff spring it takes very little time to decompress the spring sufficiently before this actuator & stiff-spring SYSTEM starts to accelerate the arm in the direction of the force. This is how you should model the electrostatic calibrator system torquing the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion springs. However if you have a very soft spring or multiple soft springs in-series between the same actuator and the TP pivoted arm and torsion bearings, the time signature of the moving arm from a standing start will look very different than the stiff spring example, and it will take much longer for the arm to start moving or stopping after the actuator starts or stops moving. This multiple soft-springs in series with an actuator system is an example of the EM-drive impulsive actuator signal driving the ICFTA structure & the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion-spring system. Does that make anymore sense?
Best, Paul M.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?
Sorry, I didn't think it through. TT had shown a graph where 5 x tc it took seconds, but on second thought you're correct. Q would need to be in the billions for it to last more than a second.
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:
"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:
"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.
-
OK, let's try it this way. If you have an actuator piston that is pulling a pivoted arm through a very stiff spring it takes very little time to decompress the spring sufficiently before this actuator & stiff-spring SYSTEM starts to accelerate the arm in the direction of the force. This is how you should model the electrostatic calibrator system torquing the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion springs. However if you have a very soft spring or multiple soft springs in-series between the same actuator and the TP pivoted arm and torsion bearings, the time signature of the moving arm from a standing start will look very different than the stiff spring example, and it will take much longer for the arm to start moving or stopping after the actuator starts or stops moving. This multiple soft-springs in series with an actuator system is an example of the EM-drive impulsive actuator signal driving the ICFTA structure & the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion-spring system. Does that make anymore sense?
Maybe... But this makes me question how reliable are your calibration pulses for force measurement, because they cannot accurately replicate the kind of effect that thrust from emdrive would have on your measurement device.
-
Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.
OK great, I think some of these are already standard outputs. But many aren't so hopefully we can find some work arounds
To start, does a transient solution need to be computed for all of the time derivatives? Or can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?
How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?
Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity? If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?
What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?
Are we ultimately after momentum density?
Good questions!
"... can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?"
I would agree that the derivative per cycle, or half-cycle even would be preferable, but "steady state" would be a pulsed, repetitive input signal they way Shawyer does it.
"How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?"
Haha, they don't! It should only thrust when charging and discharging. The magnetic flux into and out of the system is the momentum per unit charge.
"Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity?"
No, it is referring to the EM mass density, but later I used Reactive Energy/c2, the (mass) energy stored and not dissipated.
"If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?"
Yes! This is the gravito-magnetic vector potential. It's not undefined because I am equating this with the magnetic vector potential, at high Q.
"What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?"
It is relative to the status of the magnetic flux inside the circumference of the circle, the integral of the electric field around 2pi*r. If the magnetic flux is not increasing or decreasing, then the voltage potential around this loop is zero "0". If the flux is increasing or decreasing there is voltage, and if it that change is accelerating, there is divergence.
"Are we ultimately after momentum density?"
We are after the momentum density normal to the unit area, through the big end as one integral, and through the rest of the frustum as the other integral. Preferably expressed as a difference between the two, where the damping factor can be different in each integral.
That would express the thrust forward or backward, as positive or negative numbers, or 0.
The divergence of the force would be the time derivative.
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
Tub 1: Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
TE011~ 1.32GHz
TE012~ 2.01GHz
TE013~ 2.67GHz
TE014~ 3.39GHz
Tub 2: Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"
TE011~ 1.05GHz
TE012~ 1.51GHz
TE013~ 2.05GHz
TE014~ 2.63GHz
What are the resonant frequencies?
..snip
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?
Sorry, I didn't think it through. TT had shown a graph where 5 x tc it took seconds, but on second thought you're correct. Q would need to be in the billions for it to last more than a second.
TT says cavity fill time is Tc × 5
and 1 Time Constant Tc is (2 Qloaded) / ( 2 π Freq) seconds
(notice not Qunloaded)
Indeed with QL = 106 and Freq = 2.45 GHz, cavity fill time is 0.65 ms.
If Q ≥ 8 billions then cavity fill time > 1 second
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:
"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:
"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.
I am an American taxpayer, jstepp was telling me what I think, what my neighbors think, and what millions of people he has never met think, that makes him both wrong and egotistical.
On the other hand some things are mathematical facts. A simple example is 1+1=2. This means that certain statements can be made in science that are absolute within their stated range of applicability. For example, if the emDrive works, it either breaks conservation of momentum, or pushes on something. Also, I haven't seen anyone here use "we" when referring to scientists as a whole anyway.
-
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
Tub 1: Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2: Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"
What are the resonant frequencies?
Thanks TT
The website says the copper is covered with a lacquer finish. You'll need to get that all off, I suspect, and re-polish.
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.
Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.
Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.
Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.
Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.
Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
So you believe that Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics and then engineered his EmDrive of today from the physics?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even remotely. I can't imagine how you got that from what I said.
I was talking about what activities fall under the terms "experimental physics" and what activities fall under the terms "engineering".
Whether Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics was not covered by what I said.
In fact, it's very clear that Shawyer doesn't consider anything he's done to have anything to do with new physics. He considers everything he's done to be engineering based on conventionally-accepted physics. It's just as clear that Shawyer is dead wrong. He either doesn't understand physics or is lying about it. Either way, Shawyer is claiming to do engineering from known physics.
There can be no doubt that Shawyer's explanations for his drive are wrong. He claims it's based on well-accepted physics, but his analysis is clearly wrong.
It's still possible for Shawyer to be wrong about the reasons and to have stumbled upon a phenomenon beyond known physics -- extremely unlikely, but possible.
What Eagle Works and some others are doing is experimenting to see if some variant of the EM Drive actually produces thrust. The correct label for that is "experimental physics".
While it is true that experiments are being done all of the time by many working on the EmDrive concept, there is at this time no credible mechanism of physics known that results in force.
I agree with you on that. And that's no problem. That's what experimental physics is all about -- trying to gather data. It's fine for the data to show an inconsistency with any currently-available theory. That's the whole point of experimental physics.
The experiments are experiments tinkering with the engineering design, in large part as a function of trial and error. All working toward producing a drive that will produce enough thrust that the physics (physical mechanism) that produces the thrust can be explored.
Yes, exactly.
Only for those who believe that Shawyer's theory of operation is correct, does your statement hold true.
You clearly haven't understood what I was saying at all.
When I say that experimental physicists use engineering principles, I mean they use things that are known outside the area they are trying to explore. For example, CERN uses known physics to engineer their large magnets. That doesn't mean they're assuming known physics for everything, just using some of it to create their apparatus.
The same is true for EM Drive researchers. They're using some of known physics, such as microwave generators and measuring devices, to explore other areas of physics.
But only to the extent that Shawyer's theory of the science is a true and accurate description of the underlying mechanism...
Look at the historical series of frustums and power supply designs, from Shawyer, to Yang, to EW and several DIYs, and what you will find is a series of engineering improvements and many just starting from scratch with a rather vague idea, of what went before.
The only solid science or scientific tools employed in the designs right now, the simulation software.., all say there should be no net thrust.., and yet it moves.
That could be because of some new physics or it could be because of some effects from known physics that weren't properly modeled. In some cases, there's also a credibility issue -- that some people are lying can't be entirely ruled out.
There seem to be a couple of theories that may be getting close to both describing what is observed, predicting better designs and suggesting a mechanism of operation. But not quite there yet.
I do know what experimental physics is, and so far the credible physics involved seems to be saying an EmDrive should not produce thrust, and yet again.., it moves.
Again, you seem to be equating "experimental physics" with "we have a theory". That is not true at all.
The term "experimental physics" absolutely covers what you're describing -- some unexplained effect that people are gathering data on, with no credible theory to explain it yet. That's exactly experimental physics. I don't know how to say it any more clearly.
Unless someone is withholding results with undeniable thrusts, we're still working on engineering a functional drive, that can be examined and tested to determine the scientific mechanism of operation.
Even the progression of Shawyer's various drives look more like a series of engineering improvements than the realization of any credible underlying scientific mechanism of operation.
There is a difference between experiments refining an engineering design and scientific experiments based on an underlying scientific theory/model.
You still aren't getting that experiments to get better data on a phenomenon that does not match current theory is still experimental physics.
The first aims to improve or maybe just prove a functional result like thrust, while the second is both designed to meet the requirements of and prove the accuracy of a theoretical model.
No, not at all. Again, you seem to want to call all of experimental physics by the label "engineering" instead. But it's still really experimental physics.
Experimental physics is not just there to "prove the accuracy of a theoretical model". It's there to gather data. That data is the basis for new theories if it doesn't fit the existing theories.
We are all, speculating about theory, but so far.., and again unless someone is holding back.., we are still working our way through engineering designs, with the hope of achieving something new and wonderful.
And all of that is experimental physics.
-
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:
"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:
"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."
So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.
I am an American taxpayer, jstepp was telling me what I think, what my neighbors think, and what millions of people he has never met think, that makes him both wrong and egotistical.
On the other hand some things are mathematical facts. A simple example is 1+1=2. This means that certain statements can be made in science that are absolute within their stated range of applicability. For example, if the emDrive works, it either breaks conservation of momentum, or pushes on something. Also, I haven't seen anyone here use "we" when referring to scientists as a whole anyway.
Gotcha...but no hard feelings ::)
"The result of the discussion was based on the fact that not enough physicists were finding the theory worth discussing to consider it a notable topic, regardless of whether said physicists found the theory to be correct or not."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611209#msg1611209
-
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
;)
Interesting.
If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
Tub 1: Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2: Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"
What are the resonant frequencies?
Thanks TT
The website says the copper is covered with a lacquer finish. You'll need to get that all off, I suspect, and re-polish.
These are stainless steel. I would need to get them polished and plated with silver.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008X65L2A/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2NWKLMIW64H56 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008X65L2A/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2NWKLMIW64H56)
They are double wall insulated, so there is a gap where a cooling fluid could be injected in the jacket around the frustum. :)
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children.
Don't pretend to speak for "we the taxpayer". I'm a taxpayer also. Different taxpayers have different opinions. You don't speak for them all.
We don't care about hurt feelings,
You seem to be implying that opposition to spending taxpayer dollars on EM Drive research is because of "hurt feelings". Please try to be more mature and respectful. Recognize that those who disagree with you can have their own good reasons to do so.
we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.
This reminds me of an old joke. A man walks up to another man who is drunk and looking for his keys under a light post at night. The first man offers to help the second man find his keys, and asks where he last saw them. The second man points down the street to a dark patch of sidewalk and says he fell down there and then couldn't find his keys afterwards. The first man asks him why he's looking over here if he knows he lost his keys over there. The drunk man says the light is better here.
We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part.
If you care about technological progress, in space or anywhere else, you should care about theoretical physics. It's what makes all that technological progress possible. It's what tells us where it's useful to spend our effort and where it's a waste.
We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there.
You seem to be assuming that there is some irrational bias against EM Drive that would hurt people's reputations for being involved in it. But what about the possibility that there's very good reason to doubt EM Drive and good reason to doubt the judgement of people who would put resources into it?
There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.
We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear.
There's no reason to assume lack of interest in EM Drive is based on institutional inertia or fear. There's every reason to believe it's based on sound reasoning.
President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.
People who don't want to spend taxpayer resources on EM Drive aren't opposed to risk in general, they're opposed to something they see as so unlikely it's not worth spending resources on compared with much better uses of those resources.
Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care.
If you don't care and the experts agree EM Drive is not a good bet for our resources, why would you disagree with that? Apparently, you do care.
We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.
Wanting something doesn't mean it's a realistic goal.
One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space
The incremental approach may be more effective in the long run than throwing money at hopes for miracle cures.
it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.
-
Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.
OK great, I think some of these are already standard outputs. But many aren't so hopefully we can find some work arounds
To start, does a transient solution need to be computed for all of the time derivatives? Or can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?
How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?
Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity? If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?
What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?
Are we ultimately after momentum density?
Good questions!
"... can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?"
I would agree that the derivative per cycle, or half-cycle even would be preferable, but "steady state" would be a pulsed, repetitive input signal they way Shawyer does it.
"How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?"
Haha, they don't! It should only thrust when charging and discharging. The magnetic flux into and out of the system is the momentum per unit charge.
"Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity?"
No, it is referring to the EM mass density, but later I used Reactive Energy/c2, the (mass) energy stored and not dissipated.
"If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?"
Yes! This is the gravito-magnetic vector potential. It's not undefined because I am equating this with the magnetic vector potential, at high Q.
"What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?"
It is relative to the status of the magnetic flux inside the circumference of the circle, the integral of the electric field around 2pi*r. If the magnetic flux is not increasing or decreasing, then the voltage potential around this loop is zero "0". If the flux is increasing or decreasing there is voltage, and if it that change is accelerating, there is divergence.
"Are we ultimately after momentum density?"
We are after the momentum density normal to the unit area, through the big end as one integral, and through the rest of the frustum as the other integral. Preferably expressed as a difference between the two, where the damping factor can be different in each integral.
That would express the thrust forward or backward, as positive or negative numbers, or 0.
The divergence of the force would be the time derivative.
OK interesting! I'll be able to work on it Monday after 5 EST and ill come up with more questions when I get stuck :)
-
There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.
It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical". They're widely used and understood terms.
You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.
I'm doing neither. I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.
Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.
That makes no sense at all. Did you even read what I wrote? There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.
That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.
It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world. Shame on you!
Modern physics has no bias against new ideas. What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas. To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.
It's actually the opposite. If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new. Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory. It's why they do their experiments. They are looking for contradictions. They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory. It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.
Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Best, Paul M.
Best,
I disagree with that conclusion. The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off. The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force. That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted. Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.
I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response. That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen. After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform. The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.
Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction. If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Best, Paul M.
Best,
I disagree with that conclusion. The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off. The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force. That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted. Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.
I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response. That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen. After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform. The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.
Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction. If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.
Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.
https://youtu.be/XyTd5VBrfrQ
-
There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.
It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical". They're widely used and understood terms.
You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.
I'm doing neither. I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.
Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.
That makes no sense at all. Did you even read what I wrote? There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.
That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.
It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world. Shame on you!
Modern physics has no bias against new ideas. What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas. To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.
It's actually the opposite. If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new. Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory. It's why they do their experiments. They are looking for contradictions. They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory. It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.
I do have a very good idea of how physics really works when you strip out the BS. I've seen first hand how new ideas can be denigrated and the scientists who publish them are reviled. I've seen it over and over. Often they are bound by paradigms they are not allowed to question. It's true.
-
There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.
It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical". They're widely used and understood terms.
You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.
I'm doing neither. I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.
Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.
That makes no sense at all. Did you even read what I wrote? There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.
That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.
It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world. Shame on you!
Modern physics has no bias against new ideas. What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas. To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.
It's actually the opposite. If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new. Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory. It's why they do their experiments. They are looking for contradictions. They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory. It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.
Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.
Are you claiming that providing widely accepted definitions is a point of authority argument?
The only place he speaks on behalf of every physicist is "Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory." Obviously people all have different motivations, but this checking on this statement would be like asking lottery players "would you like to win the lottery?" Even the ones who understand that they do not have a real chance of winning would say yes.
-
I do have a very good idea of how physics really works when you strip out the BS. I've seen first hand how new ideas can be denigrated and the scientists who publish them are reviled. I've seen it over and over. Often they are bound by paradigms they are not allowed to question. It's true.
If by new ideas you mean to say "ideas that can be trivially proven self-contradictory, or that directly contradict available evidence" then you would be correct.
The whole point of physics is to come up with new ideas, it just turns out that physicists have already considered all of the easy ones.
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Best, Paul M.
Best,
I disagree with that conclusion. The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off. The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force. That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted. Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.
I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response. That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen. After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform. The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.
Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction. If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.
Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTd5VBrfrQ
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
-
There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.
It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical". They're widely used and understood terms.
You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.
I'm doing neither. I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.
Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.
That makes no sense at all. Did you even read what I wrote? There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.
That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.
It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world. Shame on you!
Modern physics has no bias against new ideas. What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas. To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.
It's actually the opposite. If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new. Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory. It's why they do their experiments. They are looking for contradictions. They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory. It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.
Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.
Are you claiming that providing widely accepted definitions is a point of authority argument?
The only place he speaks on behalf of every physicist is "Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory." Obviously people all have different motivations, but this checking on this statement would be like asking lottery players "would you like to win the lottery?" Even the ones who understand that they do not have a real chance of winning would say yes.
"Widely accepted" is the slippery slope. It might be in your home, on your block, at your work, in your county, ad nauseum. It's my recommendation not to attack others for posting styles like your own. There are thousands commenting on the emdrive in about every language. Google it sometimes then use translate. The OP you challenged has commentary points I've read many times elsewhere. Check it for yourself. EmDrive is a leading concept to break free of rocket limitations.
-
...
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
I don't know what is going on with that data. My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature. Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?
-
...
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
I don't know what is going on with that data. My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature. Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?
Hi there. I was following this thread carefully, but lost the track here. Why would you expect the same response when the issue at stake is temperature here? From what I see, you have one test off-resonance and another in resonance, both same power and temperature to use a baseline. Then you have another 3rds test in vacuum in resonance with "emdrive thrust" superposed with the thermal response, BUT you also have a calibration impulse with no thermal response because the calibration thrust was generated in a "thermally-neutral way" (not with high powered EM like the emdrive to heat stuff up).
I guess you could argue that the on and off resonance test was performed in-air and it is not certain it translates to vacuum, but that's a low-priority concern overall.
-
................
M.LeBel,
I hope I'm playing in the right field, working very hard to get at least somewhere. As far as what you have seen in things zipping around the night sky with your Smith & Wesson Star Tron night scope, could be their funding is better than mine, or they have bigger brains. :o
Best,
Shell
Seeshell, you`re killing me :-O
Back to our Planck universe .... The following is an outright speculation with entertainment value as it is not directly related per se to the emDrive effort here.
Everything in our universe sizzles along the Planck value. What happens if some waves or particles are NOT tuned to the Planck value? They do not interact with anything in our universe; they are not in fact in our universe.
Let’s now rewind to the very beginning. We have some starting waves with, say, the Planck value and some boundary condition, possibly a time dimension. These early waves spread and multiply like cracks in a windshield and eventually fill the set within the boundary. Are the boundary really full? No! It is only full for the Planck valued waves. To other waves (created from fluctuations or what not) this boundary is very empty. We then get waves with values h+x, h+2x, h+3x... as well as waves with h-x, h-2x, h-3x, ...etc. each in turn filling the boundary until the boundary is really full for any possible value of whatever h represents. Then, the boundary breaks open and spews some 240 (arbitrary number) universes all overlapping, without knowing it.
Now, these universes may have some blur or safety margins between them. Here the exotic part begins.. If we could alter the h value of our matter-wave, we could move it into the margin or our Planck universe, either upper or lower margin. Such altered matter-wave would effectively disappear to us. Laws of physics there would be unknown. Re-integrating this matter-wave back into our Planck universe would be a very a delicate procedure... Any déjà vue here? Of course! The Philadelphia Experiment!
Understanding the science and technology might open incredible doors. Imagine riding the margin of our Planck universe to get anywhere in a fraction of the time. Imagine just getting to the next floor; the next upper or lower universes...
Food for thoughts...
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Best, Paul M.
Best,
I disagree with that conclusion. The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off. The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force. That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted. Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.
I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response. That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen. After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform. The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.
Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction. If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.
Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTd5VBrfrQ
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
Pretty clear to me Paul that I had a null test with predictable thermal patterns being quite different from your charts when RF was on resonance. In a way, you could consider my off resonance a thermal calibration run since the power was the same and so was the temperature. Only variable I had was frequency. It's easy for me to see thermal component when off resonance. It is much slower time base than the on resonance deflections I measured. Think this is what you are illustrating with your supplemental charts. Thermal pouring is slow. Cooling is slower yet. What we see is much quicker deflection responses on resonance than can be attributed to thermal heating and cooling. I studied this both on the teeter totter and torsion beam setups. I have no doubts on how to segment resonance displacement from thermal displacement. Thus my project will continue with better RF control. No microthruster test stand is immune from a thermal component. The best ones simply label the thermal baseline response with superimposed resonance deflections as yours did. Nicely done. It's not easy.
BTW, I sent you this via email. This chart is an undampened displacement force with red bars being power on. Notice the delay in mag lock and the overshoot. Notice the fast return when power is off. Then notice the overall drift of center as overall unit begins to heat up. A clear separation of deflection force at resonance in comparison to overall thermal "off center". HTC timestamp in seconds. Beam had not been calibrated at this point, but later results showed this run to be in the 15 mN range...can only roughly estimate however.
-
I suggest you get beyond Wikipedia for your science and think for you yourself.
This is very easily an unproductive line of thought. Where humans succumb to emotion and politics, fall back on the scientific method. If you can't prove it, you can't say for sure if it's true - and if you can't prove it false, you're not making any progress in either direction. If it's outside of your means to prove or disprove something, it's probably wise to consider whether or not you're making good use of your time by endorsing it.
-
I suggest you get beyond Wikipedia for your science and think for you yourself.
This is very easily an unproductive line of thought. Where humans succumb to emotion and politics, fall back on the scientific method. If you can't prove it, you can't say for sure if it's true - and if you can't prove it false, you're not making any progress in either direction. If it's outside of your means to prove or disprove something, it's probably wise to consider whether or not you're making good use of your time by endorsing it.
As a physics guy I've been following the progress of Mills' ideas for over 15 years so I know the history of evidence and where it's at currently. I'm convinced it's true as are a growing chorus of scientists, engineers and informed observers. Unfortunately, too many people do a quick a google search, read the Wiki page and think they know it's B.S. They're wrong.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
Roger Shawyer has been testing EmDrive for many years now. The Wright brothers flew around Dayton for five years while people outside their local environment refused to believe it was true. Being first is sometimes very lonely and hard, brutal even. Mills is a saint for persevering 25 years in the face of such hostility and he's a true hero as is Shawyer and those of similar brilliance.
-
...
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
I don't know what is going on with that data. My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature. Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?
Hi there. I was following this thread carefully, but lost the track here. Why would you expect the same response when the issue at stake is temperature here? From what I see, you have one test off-resonance and another in resonance, both same power and temperature to use a baseline. Then you have another 3rds test in vacuum in resonance with "emdrive thrust" superposed with the thermal response, BUT you also have a calibration impulse with no thermal response because the calibration thrust was generated in a "thermally-neutral way" (not with high powered EM like the emdrive to heat stuff up).
I guess you could argue that the on and off resonance test was performed in-air and it is not certain it translates to vacuum, but that's a low-priority concern overall.
Thermal effects will always show more variability than force. When the frequency changes and a different resonant mode occurs different parts of the Copper cone will heat up. That can change the apparent displacement. As the metal heats up and expands it can move different ways. That makes the resulting waveform (displacement vs time) very complex. Even a simple device like an incandescent light bulb has a complex temperature step function. The graph below is the temperature step response of an incandescent bulb. The X-axis is time after it is switched on and the Y-axis is the temperature. Below that I have shown one of the EW vacuum graphs. The rise and fall times for these graphs have a similar shape as the incandescent lamp temperature step response. In the third graphic I have combined these two graphs to show how close they fit. Both diverge in their own way from a pure exponential rise time. The last graphic shows a series of thermal step functions and the response.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
NASA's Eagle Works DID NOT measure milliNewtons of thrust. They measured microNewtons of purported thrust with a microwave input of 40 to 80 watts, extrapolated to roughly 1.2 milliNewtons per kilowatt of microwave input. Just for scale, 1.2 milliNewtons is roughly 1/50 the weight of a United States coin referred to as a nickel. The EW results require 1 kilowatt of EFFECTIVE (applied) microwave energy to offset 1/50 the mass of that small coin.
And folks don't think this just might be thermal or other artifact?
I have a flying car for sale. It will be on Ebay in the second quarter of 2017. No, wait, the first quarter of 2018. No, wait...
-
I don't post or read here much lately, but the last few pages have given me the urge to make a public service announcement for those interested in emdrive discussions: Don't become an SJW:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Science%20Justice%20Warrior
I'll see myself out now...
-
I don't post or read here much lately, but the last few pages have given me the urge to make a public service announcement for those interested in emdrive discussions: Don't become an SJW:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Science%20Justice%20Warrior
I'll see myself out now...
Methinks you need a more Machevellian worldview. Historically, that's how humans tend to work. Good luck, be well, and many thanks for the massive efforts you have made on the experimental side of the Emdrive. Personally, I hope to see here the results of your design promised for 2017.
-
In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?
DeltaV:
Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"
Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off. Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide. It's just a graphic addition problem...
Thanks for the explanation. I'd missed the significance of Figure 5.
That explanation seems implausible to me for two reasons.
1. It takes about 15 seconds from the time when the RF was half off until the displacement intersects the extrapolated thermal baseline. This means that the displacement induced by the RF thrust takes at least 15 seconds to disappear. This is much slower than the ~5 second response to the calibration pulses. Why are the time constants different?
2. In Figure 18 the derivative of the displacement responds almost instantly to the RF being turned off. Your explanation of Figure 7 requires the thermal drift displacement's derivative to lag the RF being turned off by ~15 seconds. Why does the thermal drift have a lag in one case but not the other?
[Edit: the Reddit link a few posts below this post has redditor emdriventodrink emphasizing this issue.]
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
-
The 80W columns in Table 2 and Table 3 appear to have one cluster of points near 72 uN and another near 118 uN. This is far more variation than explained by the 6 uN of error tabulated in Table 1. This shows that there's some unexplained source of error with magnitude that's at least ~half in size of the claimed thrust. Without understanding the source of this unexpected error there's no way to rule out the null hypothesis that there's no actual thrust.
Particle physicists typically require that a new particle detection event to exceed 5 sigma before they believe it. Without a good understanding of the sources of error one can't say precisely how many sigmas this result is but it's clearly less than 5. Therefore I consider the most likely explanation of this paper to be some mundane error, not new physics.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
NASA's Eagle Works DID NOT measure milliNewtons of thrust. They measured microNewtons of purported thrust with a microwave input of 40 to 80 watts, extrapolated to roughly 1.2 milliNewtons per kilowatt of microwave input. Just for scale, 1.2 milliNewtons is roughly 1/50 the weight of a United States coin referred to as a nickel. The EW results require 1 kilowatt of EFFECTIVE (applied) microwave energy to offset 1/50 the mass of that small coin.
And folks don't think this just might be thermal or other artifact?
I have a flying car for sale. It will be on Ebay in the second quarter of 2017. No, wait, the first quarter of 2018. No, wait...
No, the NASA team says it's probably not thermal or artifact and I think they are in a better position to know more about it that you do.
-
Doctor Rodal mentioned something a few days (and a dozen pages or so ago) that seems to have gotten lost in debates since then:
A SECOND Estes confab, apparently slated for this December. His mention was the first I'd heard of this event.
So...
1 - When is the conference slated to happen?
2 - Rodal mentioned a lengthy, 40+ page paper apparently focusing on Woodward's theory. Who else is participating? What papers are slated for presentation? Will Todd present his latest theory? Will Shell at long last reveal some of her results? Will Paul March be able to make an appearance? Will Monomorphic be able to attend this time?
3 - Did the video team that documented the last Estes meeting ever finish their work? Sort of dropped off the radar, there.
-
Doctor Rodal mentioned something a few days (and a dozen pages or so ago) that seems to have gotten lost in debates since then:
A SECOND Estes confab, apparently slated for this December. His mention was the first I'd heard of this event.
So...
1 - When is the conference slated to happen?
2 - Rodal mentioned a lengthy, 40+ page paper apparently focusing on Woodward's theory. Who else is participating? What papers are slated for presentation? Will Todd present his latest theory? Will Shell at long last reveal some of her results? Will Paul March be able to make an appearance? Will Monomorphic be able to attend this time?
3 - Did the video team that documented the last Estes meeting ever finish their work? Sort of dropped off the radar, there.
No, you are mistaken, there is no conference in December. The proceedings from the workshop we had in September will be released in December or early January, along with the videos, as soon as they are done putting it all together. Dr. Rodal is working on the paper that was presented in that workshop, for those proceedings.
-
Good questions!
"... can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?"
I would agree that the derivative per cycle, or half-cycle even would be preferable, but "steady state" would be a pulsed, repetitive input signal they way Shawyer does it.
"How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?"
Haha, they don't! It should only thrust when charging and discharging. The magnetic flux into and out of the system is the momentum per unit charge.
"Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity?"
No, it is referring to the EM mass density, but later I used Reactive Energy/c2, the (mass) energy stored and not dissipated.
"If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?"
Yes! This is the gravito-magnetic vector potential. It's not undefined because I am equating this with the magnetic vector potential, at high Q.
"What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?"
It is relative to the status of the magnetic flux inside the circumference of the circle, the integral of the electric field around 2pi*r. If the magnetic flux is not increasing or decreasing, then the voltage potential around this loop is zero "0". If the flux is increasing or decreasing there is voltage, and if it that change is accelerating, there is divergence.
"Are we ultimately after momentum density?"
We are after the momentum density normal to the unit area, through the big end as one integral, and through the rest of the frustum as the other integral. Preferably expressed as a difference between the two, where the damping factor can be different in each integral.
That would express the thrust forward or backward, as positive or negative numbers, or 0.
The divergence of the force would be the time derivative.
OK interesting! I'll be able to work on it Monday after 5 EST and ill come up with more questions when I get stuck :)
I tried to make the parallels as clear as possible in the image below. Looking forward to seeing if this works.
-
As probably the ONLY Political Scientist on this site, I'd just like to say everybody can have an opinion about what folks think. But I prefer data, and I especially prefer data related to resonance modes in a frustum.
Can we return to the topic?
Thanks in advance, Bob.
-
No, you are mistaken, there is no conference in December. The proceedings from the workshop we had in September will be released in December or early January, along with the videos, as soon as they are done putting it all together. Dr. Rodal is working on the paper that was presented in that workshop, for those proceedings
Thank you for clarifying that.
-
We're more than 90% done with the Estes Park workshop video/audio clean up, transcriptions and most presentations or proceedings layout (I'm not 100% sure about the last category since I'm only an observer, not doing the work). People are off traveling for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, so little has been done this week, but files should be ready for posting on the SSI site this month, perhaps within the next two weeks. I'll make an announcement in this forum when that occurs.
Thanks for everyone's patience.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
NASA's Eagle Works DID NOT measure milliNewtons of thrust. They measured microNewtons of purported thrust with a microwave input of 40 to 80 watts, extrapolated to roughly 1.2 milliNewtons per kilowatt of microwave input. Just for scale, 1.2 milliNewtons is roughly 1/50 the weight of a United States coin referred to as a nickel. The EW results require 1 kilowatt of EFFECTIVE (applied) microwave energy to offset 1/50 the mass of that small coin.
And folks don't think this just might be thermal or other artifact?
I have a flying car for sale. It will be on Ebay in the second quarter of 2017. No, wait, the first quarter of 2018. No, wait...
The PLL freq control that NASA used with the vac tests could not be relied on to find the optimal freq for best resonance. It approximated the freq but could not measure it.
Following the vac tests, NASA built a min reflected power freq tracker that is very much superior at quickly finding and tracking best freq as the frustum warms up.
Which means sometime they may have gotten lucky and had a good freq at the get go or not. And then maybe sometime later it either wandered into lock or wandered out of lock.
Point being don't assume the frustum was driven at the best freq at power on, midway through the power pulse or at the end because it probably was not.
That is not an excuse, it is the reality of the limited ability they had back in 2015 to quickly lock to and hold resonance.
As an example, attached is a very clear and sharp impulse from the EmDrive, where the thermal slope and it's slow rise time are clearly shown
-
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.html
Not saying there are such things... But there could be.
-
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.html
Not saying there are such things... But there could be.
So true. But regarding dark matter, I think it will be a laughable matter 10 years from now. It has never been found. It was only theoretically predicted in an attempt to explain an accelerating expansion of the Universe.
Bringing this back around, I believe that the same phenomenon being observed in the EM Drive is related to the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In fact, I believe them to be the very same phenomenon.
-
For all those born as an Engineer, you know this is true.
The Knack. The Curse of the Engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8vHhgh6oM0
-
Are you claiming that providing widely accepted definitions is a point of authority argument?
The only place he speaks on behalf of every physicist is "Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory." Obviously people all have different motivations, but this checking on this statement would be like asking lottery players "would you like to win the lottery?" Even the ones who understand that they do not have a real chance of winning would say yes.
"Widely accepted" is the slippery slope. It might be in your home, on your block, at your work, in your county, ad nauseum. It's my recommendation not to attack others for posting styles like your own. There are thousands commenting on the emdrive in about every language. Google it sometimes then use translate. The OP you challenged has commentary points I've read many times elsewhere. Check it for yourself. EmDrive is a leading concept to break free of rocket limitations.
Go back and read the definitions that Chris Wilson provided, if you seriously think there is something not widely accepted about them, then provide an alternative.
You seem to have completely lost perspective on a few things including what the conversation was about. This was about someone claiming to speak for the American tax payer, so you have lost me as to why non-English language sources would be relevant. You have yet to support the accusation you just made claiming I have made such egregious statements the way the OP did where he claims to speak for all American taxpayers.
-
I don't post or read here much lately, but the last few pages have given me the urge to make a public service announcement for those interested in emdrive discussions: Don't become an SJW:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Science%20Justice%20Warrior
I'll see myself out now...
Methinks you need a more Machevellian worldview. Historically, that's how humans tend to work. Good luck, be well, and many thanks for the massive efforts you have made on the experimental side of the Emdrive. Personally, I hope to see here the results of your design promised for 2017.
Lol, you are probably right. Fighting for public monies is an art. I've seen far better players than myself here and elsewhere.
I do have a pre-announcement about 1701B and 2017 plans. 2 things are on the horizon for me and emdrive development next year.
#1 is a plan for someone to take over my build on the 1701B frustum for validation testing and eventual space launch. Very exciting and I'll know more in December. I may not be able to discuss specifics other than the project is a go.
#2 is potentially as exciting. Taking what I've learned over these past couple of years and begin designing, building and testing a much higher force producing engine. A totally new configuration.
This would be ideal to stage it in 2 steps like this. Get into the space race in 2017 with 1701B followed by a more powerful 1701C down the road. Nothing locked in yet but am jazzed about the possibilities
With the aiaa paper released, my own observations as well as those of trusted colleagues, I'm convinced the emdrive is the most likely pathway to interstellar exploration as it now stands. Other concepts rely on propellant or are just too low of a force production to be useful in this regard.
I'll be back some day with an update, hopefully soon.
-
I don't post or read here much lately, but the last few pages have given me the urge to make a public service announcement for those interested in emdrive discussions: Don't become an SJW:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Science%20Justice%20Warrior
I'll see myself out now...
Methinks you need a more Machevellian worldview. Historically, that's how humans tend to work. Good luck, be well, and many thanks for the massive efforts you have made on the experimental side of the Emdrive. Personally, I hope to see here the results of your design promised for 2017.
Lol, you are probably right. Fighting for public monies is an art. I've seen far better players than myself here and elsewhere.
I do have a pre-announcement about 1701B and 2017 plans. 2 things are on the horizon for me and emdrive development next year.
#1 is a plan for someone to take over my build on the 1701B frustum for validation testing and eventual space launch. Very exciting and I'll know more in December. I may not be able to discuss specifics other than the project is a go.
#2 is potentially as exciting. Taking what I've learned over these past couple of years and begin designing, building and testing a much higher force producing engine. A totally new configuration.
This would be ideal to stage it in 2 steps like this. Get into the space race in 2017 with 1701B followed by a more powerful 1701C down the road. Nothing locked in yet but am jazzed about the possibilities
With the aiaa paper released, my own observations as well as those of trusted colleagues, I'm convinced the emdrive is the most likely pathway to interstellar exploration as it now stands. Other concepts rely on propellant or are just too low of a force production to be useful in this regard.
I'll be back some day with an update, hopefully soon.
Good luck Dave.
See you in LEO or further out.
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
-
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure.
Woodward's previous design known as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) using magnetic coils with capacitors has been replicated by others in the past, including Paul March.
Woodward's newest solid-state device known as the MET (Mach-Effect Thruster) using a stack of vibrating piezoelectric ceramic PZT disks, has been very recently successfully replicated in three independent laboratories in the world, by Nembo Buldrini at Fotec GmbH (Austria), George Hathaway's Toronto lab (Canada) and Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden (Germany). More on that later as papers from their respective authors have not been published yet.
Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
In Woodward's 2014 paper "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_I) we have:
• Force measured: 2 microNewtons = 0.002 mN
• Power consumed: 170 Watts = 0.17 kW
• Efficiency (Force/Input Power) = 0.002/0.17 mN/kW = 0.012 mN/kW
So Woodward's MET indeed shows much less efficiency than any EmDrive, barely 3.5 times the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and less than 1/10 of the smallest efficiency measured by Tajmar at TU Dresden for the EmDrive in a hard vacuum.
Woodward's tests are conducted in a 15×10-3 Torr vacuum which is much less of a vacuum than the 4×10-6 Torr used by Tajmar and the 5×10-4 Torr used by NASA Eagleworks for their tests.
[EDIT: thanks to Dr Rodal for clarification of numbers and the source provided]
[EDIT2: typos]
-
In the meantime... my torsion balance is nearing completion. In the attached picture the electronics is not connected yet and only one of the dampers (oil) is in place. The balance arm of the dubbell type which is visible is meant only for exploring the dynamic behavior of the system (electronics). The beam which will hold the cavities and the RF system etc. is still under construction (see attached drawing) and is asymmetrical.
It will all be enclosed in a box made out of plywood with an Al layer on the inside. As can be seen, the cavities are suspended on the left of the balance, and will be housed in a separate box, so the joined box will have a T-shape.
Best, Peter
-
...
Zen-In:
OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier. What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.
Best, Paul M.
I don't know what is going on with that data. My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature. Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?
Hi there. I was following this thread carefully, but lost the track here. Why would you expect the same response when the issue at stake is temperature here? From what I see, you have one test off-resonance and another in resonance, both same power and temperature to use a baseline. Then you have another 3rds test in vacuum in resonance with "emdrive thrust" superposed with the thermal response, BUT you also have a calibration impulse with no thermal response because the calibration thrust was generated in a "thermally-neutral way" (not with high powered EM like the emdrive to heat stuff up).
I guess you could argue that the on and off resonance test was performed in-air and it is not certain it translates to vacuum, but that's a low-priority concern overall.
Thermal effects will always show more variability than force. When the frequency changes and a different resonant mode occurs different parts of the Copper cone will heat up. That can change the apparent displacement. As the metal heats up and expands it can move different ways. That makes the resulting waveform (displacement vs time) very complex. Even a simple device like an incandescent light bulb has a complex temperature step function. The graph below is the temperature step response of an incandescent bulb. The X-axis is time after it is switched on and the Y-axis is the temperature. Below that I have shown one of the EW vacuum graphs. The rise and fall times for these graphs have a similar shape as the incandescent lamp temperature step response. In the third graphic I have combined these two graphs to show how close they fit. Both diverge in their own way from a pure exponential rise time. The last graphic shows a series of thermal step functions and the response.
Zen-In:
OK for the sake of argument lets say that what the EW ICFTA In-Vacuum tests primarily generated were thermal signatures in nature. However even then lets deep dive into the 60W-1 ICFTA in-vacuum test for an example, (Most of the the other tests in this test series had these On/Off force steps.), and look at the magnified startup and shutdown force steps in the attached slides. I've also included the dc Lorentz offset calibration run used to subtract out the Lorentz dc offsets driven primarily by the RF amplifier's net unbalanced 28Vdc bus currents for the rest of the ICFTA in-vacuum tests. Even if we discount all the other signals we see in these in-vacuum data-plots as being thermal in nature, and I still say if, I think you might agree that these prompt ~18.5 micro-Newton (uN) steps at RF-ON and RF-OFF could be something of interest for they are definitely not Lorentz forces for they have the wrong sign as compared to the ICFTA 50 ohm dummy load test, and they are not due to switching transients for they have a constant magnitude for their 2.2 second duration. And besides, the EMPower's RF turn-on & off signal used in these tests have a soft-start ramp for the on and off control that eliminates most On/Off switching transients.
Best, Paul M.
-
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.html
Not saying there are such things... But there could be.
So true. But regarding dark matter, I think it will be a laughable matter 10 years from now. It has never been found. It was only theoretically predicted in an attempt to explain an accelerating expansion of the Universe.
Bringing this back around, I believe that the same phenomenon being observed in the EM Drive is related to the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In fact, I believe them to be the very same phenomenon.
You're mistaking dark energy with dark matter.
Dark energy is quite new and acts as an antigravitational pressure. Astrophysicists had to bring Einstein's cosmological constant out of mothballs to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Dark matter is an older concept, it is mandatory for the standard cosmological model to fit with observations (notably the abnormal galaxy rotation curves) in order to solve "the missing mass problem".
Nowadays the standard model says the universe is made of about (the recipe varies a little day to day) 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only 5% normal matter.
I personally think the bimetric Janus cosmologogical model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309717431_Presentation_for_the_public_at_large_of_the_Janus_Cosmological_Model) is more seducing. Dark energy, dark matter and this dark photon would be several facets of the same thing. But first we'd have to consider dark matter is made of negative energy hence negative mass, and cannot be seen in our universe (it emits its own negative energy dark photons) but antigravitationally acts on normal matter like dark energy. This would account for observations with no add-hoc parameter.
That "negative dark matter" is not conventional Dirac's antimatter (C-symmetry) which has positive energy hence positive mass. It is Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry) nobody never observed, because this kind of matter can't be seen due to its negative energy dark photons (negative energy is simply T-symmetry, which is not as one would think at first sight "going backwards in time").
-
Lets stay on topic please. i have half a mind to delete much of the off-topic discourse. One thing holds me back, this thread self moderates as a general rule. I see many of you recognize that. Any more politics and the hamilton solution will be swift and severe. This thread is almost ready for renewal, thanks for maintaining the signal to noise ratio.
-
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.
This is a good thought that I have applied it to both Shawyer's and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, Shawyer's emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
While it is true Woodward's test articles produce thrusts in the micro-newtons range, the applied power is also very low. Nevertheless the specific thrust achieved by Woodward's MET using a stack of PZT disks is about 10 to 50 mN/kW in a hard vacuum. This is 10x times less than Shawyer's EmDrive in ambient air, but also 10x more than Eagleworks' EmDrive in a vacuum. Theory is solid, and thrust signatures repeatable.
Woodward's previous design known as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) using magnetic coils with capacitors has been replicated by others in the past, including Paul March.
Woodward's newest solid-state device known as the MET (Mach-Effect Thruster) using a stack of vibrating piezoelectric ceramic PZT disks, has been very recently successfully replicated in three independent laboratories in the world, by Nembo Buldrini at Fotec GmbH (Austria), George Hathaway's Toronto lab (Canada) and Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden (Germany). More on that later as papers from their respective authors have not been published yet.
Flux_Capacitor:
"Nevertheless the specific thrust achieved by Woodward's MET using a stack of PZT disks is about 10 to 50 mN/kW in a hard vacuum."
Where did you pull that data from? Woodward's latest consistent thrust outputs range between 1.0 to 5.0 micro-Newton (uN) so lets be generous and give it 5.0 uN or 0.005 milli-Newton (mN) with ~300W of applied 36kHz reactive power. The Q-factor of Jim's current METs is 190 so the net dissipated power needed to generate the above 5.0 uN is 300W/190 = 1.58W of real power. That implies that on a good day these METs have a specific thrust of 0.005 mN / 0.00158 kW = 3.16 mN/kWe or 0.00316 N/kWe compared to a Hall thruster's specific thrust of ~0.050 N/kWe. Thus I say that your above 10-to-50 mN/kWe specific thrust estimate is off by an order of magnitude high, unless you know some of Jim's results I haven't seen.
-
Flux_Capacitor:
"Nevertheless the specific thrust achieved by Woodward's MET using a stack of PZT disks is about 10 to 50 mN/kW in a hard vacuum."
Where did you pull that data from? Woodward's latest consistent thrust outputs range between 1.0 to 5.0 micro-Newton (uN) so lets be generous and give it 5.0 uN or 0.005 milli-Newton (mN) with ~300W of applied 36kHz reactive power. The Q-factor of Jim's current METs is 190 so the net dissipated power needed to generate the above 5.0 uN is 300W/190 = 1.58W of real power. That implies that on a good day these METs have a specific thrust of 0.005 mN / 0.00158 kW = 3.16 mN/kWe or 0.00316 N/kWe compared to a Hall thruster's specific thrust of ~0.050 N/kWe. Thus I say that your above 10-to-50 mN/kWe specific thrust estimate is off by an order of magnitude high, unless you know some of Jim's results I haven't seen.
Yes I know you are right. I mixed up numbers with an old paper until Dr Rodal pointed out my error to me, and I was correcting my post while you published yours.
-
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.html
Not saying there are such things... But there could be.
So true. But regarding dark matter, I think it will be a laughable matter 10 years from now. It has never been found. It was only theoretically predicted in an attempt to explain an accelerating expansion of the Universe.
Bringing this back around, I believe that the same phenomenon being observed in the EM Drive is related to the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In fact, I believe them to be the very same phenomenon.
Dark matter? Dark energy?
IMO... Physics studies our Experience of the universe. It is like poking a black box and studying the answer back. We never really question what stuff is in the black box. Supporting this approach is the fact that everything in the universe is made of one type of stuff in different dynamic combinations, so, ...... maths is fine for that, thank you! No need to get the identity of the stuff...
But, when the time comes to do the accounting for the whole universe... it doesn’t balance off. This is when you have to find the identity of that stuff so as to factor it into the equations. Dark matter is the time process pervading the whole universe... Dark energy is the innumerable stretches and differentials in the time process across the universe, all missing from direct experience i.e. “Dark”.
Food for Thought...
-
Lets stay on topic please. i have half a mind to delete much of the off-topic discourse. One thing holds me back, this thread self moderates as a general rule. I see many of you recognize that. Any more politics and the hamilton solution will be swift and severe. This thread is almost ready for renewal, thanks for maintaining the signal to noise ratio.
Thank you for volunteering to moderate this thread. You and Carl G. have been doing an excellent job!
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Richard P. Feynman
-
In the meantime... my torsion balance is nearing completion. In the attached picture the electronics is not connected yet and only one of the dampers (oil) is in place. The balance arm of the dubbell type which is visible is meant only for exploring the dynamic behavior of the system (electronics). The beam which will hold the cavities and the RF system etc. is still under construction (see attached drawing) and is asymmetrical.
It will all be enclosed in a box made out of plywood with an Al layer on the inside. As can be seen, the cavities are suspended on the left of the balance, and will be housed in a separate box, so the joined box will have a T-shape.
Best, Peter
I like it! But it does look like a high tech guillotine. How sensitive will it be according to your design?
-
In the meantime... my torsion balance is nearing completion. In the attached picture the electronics is not connected yet and only one of the dampers (oil) is in place. The balance arm of the dubbell type which is visible is meant only for exploring the dynamic behavior of the system (electronics). The beam which will hold the cavities and the RF system etc. is still under construction (see attached drawing) and is asymmetrical.
It will all be enclosed in a box made out of plywood with an Al layer on the inside. As can be seen, the cavities are suspended on the left of the balance, and will be housed in a separate box, so the joined box will have a T-shape.
Best, Peter
Looks nice. I'm switching to the 1.5" Faztek square 6061 extrusions for my build as well. Is that what you are using?
What material is the torsion pendulum arm made from? Are you using non-magnetic 316 stainless steel or brass nuts and bolts for assembly?
Instead of having two laser sensors monitor the same plane of rotation, consider having one measure any rising from thermal lift. I was able to detect a small thermal lift component doing this.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
-
Dark matter is an older concept, it is mandatory for the standard cosmological model to fit with observations (notably the abnormal galaxy rotation curves) in order to solve "the missing mass problem".
Nowadays the standard model says the universe is made of about (the recipe varies a little day to day) 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only 5% normal matter.
{deleted all sorts of interesting stuff to keep tangential discussion brief... Good stuff though}
There are alternative explanations for the observed motions of galaxies and dwarf galaxies that do away with the need for dark matter. (I think the following article may be the latest such theory)
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
and WRT Inflation:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-einstein-physics.html
so the jury is kind of out on dark matter too.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).
IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port of a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.
Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.
In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
EDIT: Just to put some numbers on this, a "typical" level 7 DBM (double balanced mixer) of the passive diode type, when configured as a phase detector, will output roughly +/- 1.5 volts at its IF port when properly driven at the RF and LO ports. Given a sufficiently "numb" or insensitive VCO, no further processing is required to establish phase lock, even though the mixer IF port signal contains all of the typical mixer responses. The VCO itself won't have the bandwidth to respond to anything but the DC term. In a typical lab environment, the VCO would be a broadband synthesizer, with the PLL IF signal applied to the synthesizer master oscillator. Any decent lab quality synthesizer will have this capability. This allows the experimenter to set the locking frequency using the synthesizer output frequency control, while the synthesizer internal master clock is VCO controlled by the PLL. It is trivial to monitor the IF signal with an oscilloscope to observe the loop snap into lock, and track the incoming RF. The scope could even be used to establish a 2nd order (actually 3rd order) loop to monitor the torsion pendulum force, as the IF signal is a phase/frequency modulated representation of the phase delta between the signal of interest and the reference. Keep in mind that the +/- 1.5 volt output of the phase detector IF represents a 180 degree phase shift of the RF and LO, or about 0.017 volt per degree! Exquisitely sensitive, even without IF gain. With DC IF gain, this method is commonly used to measure parameters like phase noise to levels of -215 dBc/Hz.
This is bascically the method used to measure the accuracy and drift of "atomic clocks" to levels now approaching parts in 10^-21.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).
IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.
Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.
In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).
IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.
Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.
In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.
It wasn't an analysis, merely a remark that there was insufficient data to even begin analysis, followed by observations and suppositions as to what some of the "black boxes" on your diagram might actually be. Do you have any data that indicates how much current is flowing through each ground loop? Without that data, there can be no analysis.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).
IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.
Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.
In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.
It wasn't an analysis, merely a remark that there was insufficient data to even begin analysis, followed by observations and suppositions as to what some of the "black boxes" on your diagram might actually be. Do you have any data that indicates how much current is flowing through each ground loop? Without that data, there can be no analysis.
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz.
I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
-
As a perhaps interesting historical side note, in the 19th (and perhaps even the 17th) century horology had advanced to the point that the varying gravitational attraction caused by the moon would effect the rate of the best pendulum clocks.
Those are the kinds of forces that experimenters are dealing with here.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).
IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.
Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.
In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.
It wasn't an analysis, merely a remark that there was insufficient data to even begin analysis, followed by observations and suppositions as to what some of the "black boxes" on your diagram might actually be. Do you have any data that indicates how much current is flowing through each ground loop? Without that data, there can be no analysis.
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz.
I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
I completely agree with you that there are many uncontrolled variables in all experiments to date. I completely disagree with you that it is pointless to talk about theories, fancy or otherwise, until all such variables, Lorentz or otherwise, are accounted for. It's admirable that you have pointed out a possible source of error that others may then take into account in their experiments, but theory and experiment tend to alternately leap-frog each other.
I don't know if the PLL circuit in the EW experiment was ground isolated. Making it so would have been fairly trivial, but I just don't know. Assuming that it was not is just that. An assumption. Again, insufficient data. The devil is in the most tiny details at these force levels.
-
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz.
I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
I completely agree with you that there are many uncontrolled variables in all experiments to date. I completely disagree with you that it is pointless to talk about theories, fancy or otherwise, until all such variables, Lorentz or otherwise, are accounted for. It's admirable that you have pointed out a possible source of error that others may then take into account in their experiments, but theory and experiment tend to alternately leap-frog each other.
I don't know if the PLL circuit in the EW experiment was ground isolated. Making it so would have been fairly trivial, but I just don't know. Assuming that it was not is just that. An assumption. Again, insufficient data. The devil is in the most tiny details at these force levels.
It is not even clear whether the “thrust” exists or not. What if in a few years it is proven to be not existing? What should the theorists do with their theories? I know that arxiv.org does not allow deleting articles.
-
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/
Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
PotomacNeuron
The copper frustum force production is NOT reliant on the sense antenna cable being present, which was validated with manual controlled data runs two or three years ago, so your Lorentz force diagram is not accurate when the sense antenna was not used. Now due to the safety requirement that we had to have a single-point, green-wire ground to the torque pendulum and all its metallic parts, the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) always had some unbalance dc current loops interacting whit the ambient magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber components, thus the need to quantify these NET Lorentz forces using the dummy load test. However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Best, Paul M.
-
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz.
I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
I completely agree with you that there are many uncontrolled variables in all experiments to date. I completely disagree with you that it is pointless to talk about theories, fancy or otherwise, until all such variables, Lorentz or otherwise, are accounted for. It's admirable that you have pointed out a possible source of error that others may then take into account in their experiments, but theory and experiment tend to alternately leap-frog each other.
I don't know if the PLL circuit in the EW experiment was ground isolated. Making it so would have been fairly trivial, but I just don't know. Assuming that it was not is just that. An assumption. Again, insufficient data. The devil is in the most tiny details at these force levels.
It is not even clear whether the “thrust” exists or not. What if in a few years it is proven to be not existing? What should the theorists do with their theories? I know that arxiv.org does not allow deleting articles.
Glad to hear that your understanding of the universe is seamless. Mine is terribly flawed and my solutions to those flaws do not even meet the requirements of common sense. Committing myself to a Machian view of dynamics isolates me from almost all experienced technicians but hey! We have ourselves a paradox here, a paradox which threatens to reveal something entirely new about the universe we live in. Who cares about personal reputation.
It is one thing to respect the reputation of an employer who deserves that, but to put your own credibility before your investigation is to loose sight of its purpose.
-
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz.
I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
I completely agree with you that there are many uncontrolled variables in all experiments to date. I completely disagree with you that it is pointless to talk about theories, fancy or otherwise, until all such variables, Lorentz or otherwise, are accounted for. It's admirable that you have pointed out a possible source of error that others may then take into account in their experiments, but theory and experiment tend to alternately leap-frog each other.
I don't know if the PLL circuit in the EW experiment was ground isolated. Making it so would have been fairly trivial, but I just don't know. Assuming that it was not is just that. An assumption. Again, insufficient data. The devil is in the most tiny details at these force levels.
It is not even clear whether the “thrust” exists or not. What if in a few years it is proven to be not existing? What should the theorists do with their theories? I know that arxiv.org does not allow deleting articles.
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories". Some are just shot down more quickly than others. Eventually, ALL are shot down, even the most cherished theories we know to be "true" today. They may be shot down in a rapid blaze of glory, or be slowly whittled away as more data becomes available that makes them less and less relevant. The lack of a "theory of everything", for example, is as worrisome to modern physics as it was to Einstein. I'm not talking about decimal points, I'm talking about an underlying lack of something very basic. We just don't know what it is.
People tend to be, I think, either theorists or experimentalists. Einstein actually had a patent, for a refrigerator of all things, but had the theory necessary to build a laser in the 1930's. Any good neon sign manufacturer with access to dielectric mirrors (yes, they existed in the 30's) could have built one. Einstein was a phenomenal theorist. Experimentalist, nah, not so much. It's the constant feedback between the two that advances technology (and science, in the shorter view).
Did you ever notice that it generally takes about a generation between a wing-nut idea (like quantum mechanics) to the hardware capable of proving (or disproving) the idea? The dead-wood has to die off so that the next generation can shed pre-conceived notions and built hardware.
The first LED was observed in the 1910's. There was no theory to explain its operation. The theory for the laser (or maser) was expounded by Einstein. It took until the 1950's for the first maser to be constructed. Theory and practice leap-frog each other. Both are critically necessary. Or not, as the case may be. Some theories are so off-the-wall that they don't deserve further consideration (hollow earth). Some hardware is the same (Dean drive). Neither are ever wasted. They just illuminate paths that don't warrant the effort of walking. Sometimes, it just may take more time than we like for the two to meet. Enough philosophical expounding. Keep on keeping-on. I can't play nasty devil's advocate without things to moan about, and things to suggest based on my own experience and the results I read here.
EDIT: Minor typo corrections and minor extension of my bloviation.
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell
-
For the DIY'ers. If we want a DC powered MW amplifier that can be integrated onto the frustum. Ideally, what would you choose? Starting a database so I can understand what is and is not possible. Thanks!
-
For the DIY'ers. If we want a DC powered MW amplifier that can be integrated onto the frustum. Ideally, what would you choose? Starting a database so I can understand what is and is not possible. Thanks!
It was this light source, I have recommended in this forum, but it is sold out now,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PANASONIC-PT61LCZ7-Others-Light-Unit-LUXIM-LIFI-Good-LIFI-4000-G1ew1433-/151755620237
This module includes a 28V, 9.5A (14.5 at start up), 915 MHz, 200W microwave oscillator. All you need is a frustum, a feed antenna and a pick up antenna + attenuator. You need to hack the circuit, of course. It uses NXP LDMOS FET(s) that are sold for $100 a piece.
On ebay you can search "luxim" to find other "light source power supply" modules. Those are microwave osc+RFamp modules that you can reuse at least the components.
A description: http://slidepapers.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Long-Life-Solid-State-RF-Powered-Light-Sources.pdf
block diagram:
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space).
Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.
-
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=41881
ChrisWilson68
I respect that some people believe EM Drive works and will change the world. But I do not respect those people who insult those who disagree and think there is good reason to think EM Drive is very unlikely to work.
[/quote]
Your rebuttal was very well put and shows a depth of knowledge on NASA and the programs few have. I agree in most part but differ in a few things. I really wished NASA had kept the ability to launch astronauts into space. Every time there is a disagreement between the US and Russia I hold my breath something will close that avenue.
The other is, why do you say the EMDrive is unlikely to work? You are entitled to your views and I respect them. Seemingly there is slowly mounting data (not perfect) but data that points to something strange. I think it deserves a "I don't know", but I'd like to hear why you think it's unlikely to work.
My Best,
Shell
-
Best, Paul M.
Paul, you've mentioned a couple of times that you're planning on getting a home lab up and running - do you have any concrete plans of what areas you want to investigate, or what sort of test program you are going to run?
Interested in how you think you can build on the work at EW, and what's missing from those results.
-
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.html
Not saying there are such things... But there could be.
So true. But regarding dark matter, I think it will be a laughable matter 10 years from now. It has never been found. It was only theoretically predicted in an attempt to explain an accelerating expansion of the Universe.
Bringing this back around, I believe that the same phenomenon being observed in the EM Drive is related to the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In fact, I believe them to be the very same phenomenon.
You're mistaking dark energy with dark matter.
Dark energy is quite new and acts as an antigravitational pressure. Astrophysicists had to bring Einstein's cosmological constant out of mothballs to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Dark matter is an older concept, it is mandatory for the standard cosmological model to fit with observations (notably the abnormal galaxy rotation curves) in order to solve "the missing mass problem".
Nowadays the standard model says the universe is made of about (the recipe varies a little day to day) 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only 5% normal matter.
I personally think the bimetric Janus cosmologogical model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309717431_Presentation_for_the_public_at_large_of_the_Janus_Cosmological_Model) is more seducing. Dark energy, dark matter and this dark photon would be several facets of the same thing. But first we'd have to consider dark matter is made of negative energy hence negative mass, and cannot be seen in our universe (it emits its own negative energy dark photons) but antigravitationally acts on normal matter like dark energy. This would account for observations with no add-hoc parameter.
That "negative dark matter" is not conventional Dirac's antimatter (C-symmetry) which has positive energy hence positive mass. It is Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry) nobody never observed, because this kind of matter can't be seen due to its negative energy dark photons (negative energy is simply T-symmetry, which is not as one would think at first sight "going backwards in time").
Thank you for your response. We would have to agree that Dark Energy and Dark Matter(if they exist) are two sides of the same coin in the same way that energy and matter are in our current understanding of observable physics.
I do want to thank you for the input as it has forced me to take my theory to a galactic level(which I had not done yet). After some consideration, I have come up with a diagram that helps to better explain some of these observations with the observed galaxy rotation curves. See the attached.
As r becomes larger, several things happen:
1. G decreases
2. A1 slightly increases
3. A2 increases
According to my theory, what results in the rotational velocity increasing on a galactic level as r increases is that A2 continues to increase replacing the affects of G.
A1: Antigravity force 1 - What causes the A1 force is the energy residing in the space between M and m that is converting into matter and resulting in space creation, offsetting some of the space destroyed by gravity, although I predict this to be miniscule.
A2: Antigravity force 2 - What causes A2 is the energy surrounding the space outside of the galaxy which is converting into matter and having an antigravity effect by creating space. This puts an inward pressure on the galaxy(which has been widely interpreted up to now as being caused by "dark/invisible" matter within the galaxy itself instead of an external force).
r = radius
v = rotational velocity
M = mass of galaxy center(although in the case of a galaxy, much of the mass is found throughout the galaxy and not in the center such as in a solar system like ours)
m = mass of observed galactic body
What I believe we are observing in this drive is anti-gravity.
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell
Yes, obviously. But not all data are useful. With the rush of DIYers there have been a lot of substandard experiments, where for example characterisation of the tested device and description of methods used to measure thrust are very lacking or completely missing. Just have a look at the (IMO mostly legitimate) criticism EM paper got on reddit, and that was the best (by far) emdrive measurement report seen in public.
About bad theories: to pick one example, I can't be the only one here who thinks that Shawyer's theory fits that description.
-
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, it is my understanding that in the D-B test, the frustum was in resonance in TM212 mode with a PE disc at small end and the reaction force vector was measured big to small.
Can you at least confirm the direction of thrust on these dynamic air bearing rotary experiments, and the presence or absence of an internal polymer insert (or if the two possibilities were tested)?
-
In the meantime... my torsion balance is nearing completion. In the attached picture the electronics is not connected yet and only one of the dampers (oil) is in place. The balance arm of the dubbell type which is visible is meant only for exploring the dynamic behavior of the system (electronics). The beam which will hold the cavities and the RF system etc. is still under construction (see attached drawing) and is asymmetrical.
It will all be enclosed in a box made out of plywood with an Al layer on the inside. As can be seen, the cavities are suspended on the left of the balance, and will be housed in a separate box, so the joined box will have a T-shape.
Best, Peter
I like it! But it does look like a high tech guillotine. How sensitive will it be according to your design?
Thank you, Bob. I will put it in a box, so no heads or limbs will be chopped off.
The sensitivity will depend on the noise level and drift it has in this new setup. At other sites, and with other constructions, the smallest forces I could measure were ~ 0.3 micronewton. That is approx. the resolution. I will make some modifications to the electronics, so I hope to even improve on these numbers. The sensitivity of course also depends on the amplification factor of the electronics and the damping, and the range which is required (at least 200 uN).
-
Looks nice. I'm switching to the 1.5" Faztek square 6061 extrusions for my build as well. Is that what you are using?
Thank you, Monomorphic.
The extrusions are from Item (I think it's a German company http://www.item24.com/ ), probably about the same as the Faztek you mention. Only 40 x 40 mm.
What material is the torsion pendulum arm made from? Are you using non-magnetic 316 stainless steel or brass nuts and bolts for assembly?
The torsion pendulum arm will also be from Al Item profiles, 30 x 30 mm. On this arm I will use only brass nuts and bolts. Also on the frame parts which are close to the pendulum arm (on the picture, some stainless steel bolts can be seen which will be replaced by brass ones).
Instead of having two laser sensors monitor the same plane of rotation, consider having one measure any rising from thermal lift. I was able to detect a small thermal lift component doing this.
Yes, good idea. I have a 3rd sensor to do that.
I use two position sensors because the servo system which powers the solenoid only compensates for rotation and not for translation of the beam (due to tilt or swinging mode). The signals of the two sensors are subtracted from each other.
It are no laser sensors, btw. They are home-made: a red LED above a photodiode (BPW21). The current through the LED is stabilized with a circuit that also enables adjustment so both sensors give the same output. A blocking vane is attached to the balance beam which partly interrupts this opto coupler. Works very well, very reliable, I'm using this type for more than two decades now, very cheap. Has micrometer resolution and ~ 1 mm linear range.
-
Would a material like this: http://anomet.com/aluminum/ be more effective than copper? Thoughts?
-
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.
For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.
Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Or take a short cut.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
;)
This one is a bit too small. Or you have to go to higher freqs, of course. But altogether it is cheaper than making it completely yourself out of sheets of copper, I found out.
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
When dealing with something completely new like the EmDrive, one shouldn't be overconfident they can fit the phenomenon within their current understanding thus not be so adamant a new idea or theory is bad.
-
Coupling of these two copper bowls with flanges in the middle will suppress TM modes, I guess. No problem. But good resonance in TE012 will be possible, isn't it?
I want to use this cavity (coupled it will be a cylinder 179.5 mm inside diam., 179 mm length, edges rounded, radius ~15 mm) to experiment with coupling loops and dielectric inserts.
TE012 is at ~2.64 GHz, and ough, TE113 at 2.69 GHz, according to my calculations.
Planned exps with loops are, a.o., according to the ideas by put forward by Monomorphic [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608248#msg1608248], dustinthewind [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608434#msg1608434, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1609040#msg1609040] and SeeShells [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608617#msg1608617, can't find the message about the clover leaf antenna's] (and prob forgetting someone).
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space).
Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.
All:
The EW copper frustum was radially vented along the entire perimeter of both the big OD and small OD ends of the frustum, so any vented gas's momentum would be cancelled out. Thus all the copper frustum tests run in an ambient vacuum also had near the same vacuum level in the frustum itself. I also made sure that all venting was completed before running any tests and since it took hours to reach the desired vacuum levels of less than ~5x10^-5 Torr, all venting activities were long gone before testing started.
Best,
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell
Yes, obviously. But not all data are useful. With the rush of DIYers there have been a lot of substandard experiments, where for example characterisation of the tested device and description of methods used to measure thrust are very lacking or completely missing. Just have a look at the (IMO mostly legitimate) criticism EM paper got on reddit, and that was the best (by far) emdrive measurement report seen in public.
About bad theories: to pick one example, I can't be the only one here who thinks that Shawyer's theory fits that description.
The point I was trying to make is that until data or theories are presented, good OR bad, there's no discussion to be had at all. We may as well sit around a fire, grunting, and banging rocks together.
Until Ogg comes out with his stupidly flawed rock banging theory I can't possibly discount it. In that sense there are no bad theories, i.e., I can't tell if it's bad until I hear it. Even Ogg may change his tune after the flaws are explained to him, and rock banging then moves forward.
-
Best, Paul M.
Paul, you've mentioned a couple of times that you're planning on getting a home lab up and running - do you have any concrete plans of what areas you want to investigate, or what sort of test program you are going to run?
Interested in how you think you can build on the work at EW, and what's missing from those results.
Nerm999:
The plans for my workshop are in work and pricing is being obtained for same. It looks like that this 14' x 30' air-conditioned storage, workshop and Lab building will end up costing my wife and I over $50k and then I get to equip it with my existing home lab stuff in our home plus new test gear as required.
As to what I plan to test, I am going to be looking at improved versions of both Jim Woodard's Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives and the EM-drive frustums, parabaloids or hemispheres that will NOT have their designs frozen until their thrust outputs are over 1.0 milli-Newton or more. Then it will be the same old test them in as many ways as possible considering my available test budget, time & energy.
Best, Paul M,
-
To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".
I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.
If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell
Yes, obviously. But not all data are useful. With the rush of DIYers there have been a lot of substandard experiments, where for example characterisation of the tested device and description of methods used to measure thrust are very lacking or completely missing. Just have a look at the (IMO mostly legitimate) criticism EM paper got on reddit, and that was the best (by far) emdrive measurement report seen in public.
About bad theories: to pick one example, I can't be the only one here who thinks that Shawyer's theory fits that description.
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
We are intelligent beings immersed in data, our eyes, ears, touch, smell, taste and extended that breadth of information and sensory input with our machines, it's how we perceive the world we exist in. We cannot assign a good and bad to it, it's just information to process. If it's flawed, we can say the results and conclusions we draw from it are bad or good, but not the data. Data is just a tool, it's like calling a hammer bad because you hit your thumb, it's not the hammer that's bad, it's your aim. :o
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/men-hammers-thumb-wood-workbench-hammered-bstn96_low.jpg)
Best,
Shell
PS: I'd still like to hear your thoughts on why the drive cannot work.
-
PotomacNeuron
The copper frustum force production is NOT reliant on the sense antenna cable being present, which was validated with manual controlled data runs two or three years ago, so your Lorentz force diagram is not accurate when the sense antenna was not used.
Thank you for answering. This Lorentz force diagram is for the new experiment in the AIAA publication, and not for the old (two or three years ago) experiment which did not use a sense antenna. It is relatively accurate for this new experiment. For the old experiment, I have other illustrations in my 2014 arxiv paper.
Now due to the safety requirement that we had to have a single-point, green-wire ground to the torque pendulum and all its metallic parts, the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) always had some unbalance dc current loops interacting whit the ambient magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber components, thus the need to quantify these NET Lorentz forces using the dummy load test.
The purpose of my illustration is to show that this dummy load test is not sufficient to quantify the NET Lorentz force. The presence of the dummy load itself changed the ground loop pattern thus Lorentz force. It quantified the Lorentz force with the dummy load test, not the Lorentz force with the frustum test.
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you again.
-
Not at all sure if this is a realistic possibility, but the large variation in measured thrust, and the large increase from 40W to 60W contrasting with the small increase (even a decrease in two forward and one reverse run) between 60W and 80W made me think of center of gravity shifts due to stick-slip movement of components (caused for example by magnetic force between two current carrying wires). Movement occurs when the force exceeds maximum static friction, and after that "slip", a further increase in force (current) may have no effect (since dynamic friction is lower than static friction, or because the wire or component can't move any further).
Static friction is variable, the amount of displacement during the "slip" varies, parts won't return to the exact same position when power is turned off, so repeated runs would give different results. If 60W is sufficient to move most "movable" parts, increasing the power to 80W wouldn't make much difference.
I don't know whether the equipment contains movable parts (coils, wires), or whether other non-thermal effects can cause displacement or deformation of parts of the apparatus, is there an obvious reason why the paper seemed to consider only thermal causes of cg-shift?
I'm not an RF expert, so sorry if this is a naive question.
-
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, it is my understanding that in the D-B test, the frustum was in resonance in TM212 mode with a PE disc at small end and the reaction force vector was measured big to small.
Can you at least confirm the direction of thrust on these dynamic air bearing rotary experiments, and the presence or absence of an internal polymer insert (or if the two possibilities were tested)?
Flux-Capacitor:
"Paul, it is my understanding that in the C-B test, the frustum was in resonance in TM212 mode with a PE disc at small end and the reaction force vector was measured big to small."
Correct, but we were using a new, fully automated digital S11 resonant frequency tracker instead of the old PLL system that required near constant attention by me to keep it on tune. This was required because in the torque pendulum tests we never ran it past 90 seconds of run time, whereas in the Cavendish Balance (C-B) tests, a typical run time was the ~30 minutes it took to deplete the on-board 10 A-hr, Li-Fe-PO4 battery down to a 20% state of charge.
"Can you at least confirm the direction of thrust on these dynamic air bearing rotary experiments, and the presence or absence of an internal polymer insert (or if the two possibilities were tested)?"
Again, we were using the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) with 2 PE discs mounted at the small OD end of the frustum using its TM212 resonant frequency mode that was used in the Fall 2015 EW in-vacuum test campaign reported in the AIAA/JPP paper. However the "free-flyer" C-B rig required the above S11 frequency tracker modification and also the addition of a remote controlled battery pack and avionics package that gathered and sent test telemetry data via WiFi to and from the lab computer that I manned. The thrust vector was still from the big OD end to the small OD end of the cavity for this two PE discs loaded frustum as before. And no, we did not test a no-dielectric version in the C-B test rig to see if the thrust vector reversed before I left the EW lab for good.
Best, Paul M.
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
(http://www.searchquotes.com/sof/images/picture_quotes/166455_20150221_130150_IMG_20141013_073501.jpg)
-
Not at all sure if this is a realistic possibility, but the large variation in measured thrust, and the large increase from 40W to 60W contrasting with the small increase (even a decrease in two forward and one reverse run) between 60W and 80W made me think of center of gravity shifts due to stick-slip movement of components (caused for example by magnetic force between two current carrying wires). Movement occurs when the force exceeds maximum static friction, and after that "slip", a further increase in force (current) may have no effect (since dynamic friction is lower than static friction, or because the wire or component can't move any further).
Static friction is variable, the amount of displacement during the "slip" varies, parts won't return to the exact same position when power is turned off, so repeated runs would give different results. If 60W is sufficient to move most "movable" parts, increasing the power to 80W wouldn't make much difference.
I don't know whether the equipment contains movable parts (coils, wires), or whether other non-thermal effects can cause displacement or deformation of parts of the apparatus, is there an obvious reason why the paper seemed to consider only thermal causes of cg-shift?
I'm not an RF expert, so sorry if this is a naive question.
Drijfzand:
"Not at all sure if this is a realistic possibility, but the large variation in measured thrust, and the large increase from 40W to 60W contrasting with the small increase (even a decrease in two forward and one reverse run) between 60W and 80W made me think of center of gravity shifts due to stick-slip movement of components (caused for example by magnetic force between two current carrying wires)."
The reason the thrust efficiency fell off from the EW AIAA/JPP tests going from the 60W tests to 80W tests is that I physically bumped the ICFTA's 3-stub tuner during one of the times I was reversing the 9.3kg ICFTA on its torque pendulum arm. I never could get back to that "just-so" 3-Stub tuning solution that allowed the 40W and 60W runs to work the way they did, so we muddled through for the 80W tests as best we could. And yes, that is a tribute to how super sensitive the RF tuning requirements are needed to evoke the thrust response we are looking for, for both the loop antenna in the frustum AND the 3-Stub tuner between the RF amplifier and frustum loop antenna.
BTW, the above super-sensitive RF tuning requirements in the frustum system is another reason I know that these force measurements are the real deal and not just mundane "Lorentz forces" because the same dc currents can be flowing for low-thrust, slightly off-tuned conditions, verses spot on tuned conditions that produce twice or more of the thrust signal with the SAME dc currents flowing to the PLL box and the RF amplifier.
Best, Paul M.
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
Well said.
Now a bad theory is the Miasma theory of disease, the theory that diseases are caused by bad air.
Flipping it around, some theories are just that, bad air.
Shell
-
PotomacNeuron
The copper frustum force production is NOT reliant on the sense antenna cable being present, which was validated with manual controlled data runs two or three years ago, so your Lorentz force diagram is not accurate when the sense antenna was not used.
Thank you for answering. This Lorentz force diagram is for the new experiment in the AIAA publication, and not for the old (two or three years ago) experiment which did not use a sense antenna. It is relatively accurate for this new experiment. For the old experiment, I have other illustrations in my 2014 arxiv paper.
Now due to the safety requirement that we had to have a single-point, green-wire ground to the torque pendulum and all its metallic parts, the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) always had some unbalance dc current loops interacting whit the ambient magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber components, thus the need to quantify these NET Lorentz forces using the dummy load test.
The purpose of my illustration is to show that this dummy load test is not sufficient to quantify the NET Lorentz force. The presence of the dummy load itself changed the ground loop pattern thus Lorentz force. It quantified the Lorentz force with the dummy load test, not the Lorentz force with the frustum test.
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you again.
PotomacNeuron:
A thought just struck me and that while looking at your ground loop diagrams, you show the 50-ohm dummy load's metal chassis as being isolated from the torque pendulum and frustum metallic structures. However I've run the dummy load with and without its ground return bonded to the frustum with little difference between the two wiring configurations and certainly not enough difference to masquerade as the thrust signature I kept observing.
Best, Paul M.
-
Brian Koberlein @ Forbes: NASA's EMDrive And The Quantum Theory Of Pilot Waves
"In a desperate attempt to demonstrate that the EM Drive doesn’t violate physics after all, the authors spend a considerable amount of time arguing that the effect could be explained by pilot waves. Basically they argue that not only is pilot wave theory valid for quantum theory, but that pilot waves are the result of background quantum fluctuations known as zero point energy. Through pilot waves the drive can tap into the vacuum energy of the Universe, thus saving physics! To my mind it’s a rather convoluted at weak argument. The pilot wave model of quantum theory is interesting and worth exploring, but using it as a way to get around basic physics is weak tea. Trying to cobble a theoretical way in which it could work has no value without the experimental data to back it up.
... "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/28/nasas-emdrive-and-the-quantum-theory-of-pilot-waves/
-
Brian Koberlein @ Forbes: NASA's EMDrive And The Quantum Theory Of Pilot Waves
"In a desperate attempt to demonstrate that the EM Drive doesn’t violate physics after all, the authors spend a considerable amount of time arguing that the effect could be explained by pilot waves. Basically they argue that not only is pilot wave theory valid for quantum theory, but that pilot waves are the result of background quantum fluctuations known as zero point energy. Through pilot waves the drive can tap into the vacuum energy of the Universe, thus saving physics! To my mind it’s a rather convoluted at weak argument. The pilot wave model of quantum theory is interesting and worth exploring, but using it as a way to get around basic physics is weak tea. Trying to cobble a theoretical way in which it could work has no value without the experimental data to back it up.
... "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/28/nasas-emdrive-and-the-quantum-theory-of-pilot-waves/
So, do they want to see EM Drive data with a theory about why they might be seeing these results in the first place (poor as it may be), or no theoretical explanation at all for the experimental data that appears to contradict known physics? ???
-
Brian Koberlein @ Forbes: NASA's EMDrive And The Quantum Theory Of Pilot Waves
"In a desperate attempt to demonstrate that the EM Drive doesn’t violate physics after all, the authors spend a considerable amount of time arguing that the effect could be explained by pilot waves. Basically they argue that not only is pilot wave theory valid for quantum theory, but that pilot waves are the result of background quantum fluctuations known as zero point energy. Through pilot waves the drive can tap into the vacuum energy of the Universe, thus saving physics! To my mind it’s a rather convoluted at weak argument. The pilot wave model of quantum theory is interesting and worth exploring, but using it as a way to get around basic physics is weak tea. Trying to cobble a theoretical way in which it could work has no value without the experimental data to back it up.
... "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/28/nasas-emdrive-and-the-quantum-theory-of-pilot-waves/
So, do they want to see EM Drive data with a theory about why they might be seeing these results in the first place (poor as it may be), or no theoretical explanation at all for the experimental data that appears to contradict known physics? ???
The Pilot Wave Theory keeps on coming up and according to some new testing, it isn't dead yet.
QUANTUM MECHANICS
New Support for Alternative Quantum View
An experiment claims to have invalidated a decades-old criticism against pilot-wave theory, an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the most baffling features of the subatomic universe.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/
Best,
Shell
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Interesting in general, but unfortunately of no applicability to those claiming that there is thrust from an empty copper truncated conical cavity EM Drive at low electromagnetic fields with less than 1 kW, as these measurements took place in the newly discovered Dirac semimetal ZrTe5, and at magnetic fields from 3 T to 60 T !
A macroscopic quantum phenomenon present in systems with charged chiral fermions, such as the quark-gluon plasma, or Dirac and Weyl semimetals, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_magnetic_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semimetal
(https://www.cpfs.mpg.de/2520622/Dirac_semimetal-1441789569.jpg)
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Unfortunately of no applicability to those claiming that there is thrust in an empty truncated conical cavity EM Drive, as these measurements take place in the newly discovered Dirac semimetal ZrTe5, and at magnetic fields from 3 T to 60 T !
Yes it was in a 3-60 Tesla field, although the point is that's interesting is electrons can acquire mass. Electrons are the first generation of lepton particle, are elementary particles with no known components or substructure. Electrons and positrons do not consist of quarks as the protons are which feel the strong forces of that bind protons together and that energy gives them their mass from what I understand.
I'm way outside my field of soldering irons and the smell of flux.
Shell
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Unfortunately of no applicability to those claiming that there is thrust in an empty truncated conical cavity EM Drive, as these measurements take place in the newly discovered Dirac semimetal ZrTe5, and at magnetic fields from 3 T to 60 T !
Yes it was in a 3-60 Tesla field, although the point is that's interesting is electrons can acquire mass. Electrons are the first generation of lepton particle, are elementary particles with no known components or substructure. Electrons and positrons do not consist of quarks as the protons are which feel the strong forces of that bind protons together and that energy gives them their mass from what I understand.
I'm way outside my field of soldering irons and the smell of flux.
Shell
But also there is no semimetal inside the empty copper EM Drive cavities, and some EM Drive aficionados (not you and Monomorphic 8) ) have been antagonistic (if not downright hostile) to even testing the chiral dielectric polymer inserts used by NASA Eagleworks...
to say nothing about chiral magnetic semimetal effect inserts...
(http://images.midilibre.fr/images/2011/10/20/les-aficionados-veulent-repliquer-dignement_322207_510x255.jpg)
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space).
Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.
All:
The EW copper frustum was radially vented along the entire perimeter of both the big OD and small OD ends of the frustum, so any vented gas's momentum would be cancelled out. Thus all the copper frustum tests run in an ambient vacuum also had near the same vacuum level in the frustum itself. I also made sure that all venting was completed before running any tests and since it took hours to reach the desired vacuum levels of less than ~5x10^-5 Torr, all venting activities were long gone before testing started.
Best,
Thanks for that clarification. Was reviewing the wiki data and it looks as though the team was using the same frequency as when testing in an ambient atmosphere. However, you may then need to recallibrate the frequency for optimal performance in a vacuum. This is because the wavelength is longer in a vacuum then air.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Dept2/APPhys1/optics/optics/node7.html
-
PotomacNeuron
The copper frustum force production is NOT reliant on the sense antenna cable being present, which was validated with manual controlled data runs two or three years ago, so your Lorentz force diagram is not accurate when the sense antenna was not used.
Thank you for answering. This Lorentz force diagram is for the new experiment in the AIAA publication, and not for the old (two or three years ago) experiment which did not use a sense antenna. It is relatively accurate for this new experiment. For the old experiment, I have other illustrations in my 2014 arxiv paper.
Now due to the safety requirement that we had to have a single-point, green-wire ground to the torque pendulum and all its metallic parts, the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) always had some unbalance dc current loops interacting whit the ambient magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber components, thus the need to quantify these NET Lorentz forces using the dummy load test.
The purpose of my illustration is to show that this dummy load test is not sufficient to quantify the NET Lorentz force. The presence of the dummy load itself changed the ground loop pattern thus Lorentz force. It quantified the Lorentz force with the dummy load test, not the Lorentz force with the frustum test.
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you again.
Am I missing something?
The portion (I placed) in bold above does not seem a logical conclusion.., since the the test article experienced self acceleration in both directions, when the orientation of the test device was reversed.., even while any swirl torque would have remained constant in its direction, no matter what orientation the test article was in.
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
(http://www.searchquotes.com/sof/images/picture_quotes/166455_20150221_130150_IMG_20141013_073501.jpg)
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.
Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.
GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Yup.. I've been saying this for years (decades?). The observed mass of an electron is mostly due to induction.
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
...
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.
Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.
GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.
OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe. Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe. As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.
Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal. Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time. No, it was not a question of spoon and forks ;)
Again,
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
I presume that Shawyer's goal is to enable a propellant-less drive . The electromagnetically resonant truncated copper cone is just a means to that end. His theory is a particular path to that end.
Stating that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity is actually a dead end. I am surprised that he has not yet acknowledged this and come up with a more realistic model.
-
Please forgive an outside observer for asking a dumb question...couldn't much of this argument be resolved by putting an EM drive into LEO and seeing whether it developed thrust? We have a space station, do we not? If that is the case, why do you not pool your efforts to make that happen?
-
So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector
I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…
I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf) which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…
Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.
The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.
But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. ???
-
I am doing this wrong, I promise to get smarter. Deleted some good along with the nonsense, apologies for that. Great theory and practice discussions, keep it up! Wikipedia and politics just amplify the noise.
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
...
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.
Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.
GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.
OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe. Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe. As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.
Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal. Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time. No, it was not a question of spoon and forks ;)
.........
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.
SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.
The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.
Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....
As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...
-
PotomacNeuron
....
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you again.
Am I missing something?
The portion (I placed) in bold above does not seem a logical conclusion.., since the the test article experienced self acceleration in both directions, when the orientation of the test device was reversed.., even while any swirl torque would have remained constant in its direction, no matter what orientation the test article was in.
Well, unreliable is unreliable. You can't assume that the air bearing will reliably produce swirl torque toward the same direction when the frustum is mounted with opposite directions. The mass center changes, the way the moving part of the bearing leaning on the non-moving part changes. I am sure an air dynamics engineer can design an air bearing to show that it can change swirl torque direction when the moving part leans its opposite sides toward the non-moving part.
-
...
But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. ???
Not just you, but nobody can do an inverse divergence. The divergence operator takes a vector field and produces a scalar field.
To produce an inverse divergence operator one would need to take a scalar and produce a vector field. Hence, given a scalar field, one should expect to find a very large number of vector fields whose divergence is equal to the given scalar field.
You could use parameterization, but you would end up with a large number of free parameters, and only one constraint.
It is not a well-posed problem !
Your number of unknowns greatly exceed your number of equations (you only have one constraint).
-
...
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.
SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.
The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.
Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....
As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...
My point was to discuss Shawyer's not changing his EM Drive theory in the last 16 years.
You, rather, prefer to discuss your views of SR and GR as "spoon and fork."
Your argument (SR connection with GR) is off-topic for a thread << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8>>, so I am not going to pursue any further our disagreements over SR and GR, or our views about Physics, which you describe as << a collection of loosely connected truth systems. >> ?
-
Please forgive an outside observer for asking a dumb question...couldn't much of this argument be resolved by putting an EM drive into LEO and seeing whether it developed thrust? We have a space station, do we not? If that is the case, why do you not pool your efforts to make that happen?
As I understand it, there is a cubesat experiment in the works to do just that, although the ISS likely won't be involved.
-
...
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.
SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.
The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.
Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....
As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...
My point was to discuss Shawyer's not changing his EM Drive theory in the last 16 years.
You, rather, prefer to discuss your views of SR and GR as "spoon and fork."
Your argument (SR connection with GR) is off-topic for a thread << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8>>, so I am not going to pursue any further our disagreements over SR and GR.
Dr Rodal, thank you for the appropriate reply. My mistake! I just saw an opportunity to give my opinion and perspective on the subject of SR and GR as theories.. I should have ended my post with the usual "Food for Thought" line which does not require any reply, just thinking as is offered , and not comment on a comment you made on someone else's comment.... :)
-
Rodal,
All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?
At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.
As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused. It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this. Could you clarify this for me?
-
Rodal,
All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?
At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.
As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused. It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this. Could you clarify this for me?
Let's go one step at a time. First it has to be demonstrated that there is any force produced that is in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, for a completely closed cavity.
I think that this test can be accomplished in LEO, at a much smaller cost than a synchronous or higher orbit test.
If it it could demonstrated that the EM Drive, as a closed cavity, without ejecting anything into space, or interacting with any external fields (other than gravity) can produce a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket it would be revolutionary.
The funding for these efforts has been miniscule up to now, so there are no good answers for your questions yet.
If it can be demonstrated that a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket can be produced, then real money will be available to answer your questions.
-
Rodal,
All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?
At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.
As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused. It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this. Could you clarify this for me?
Let's go one step at a time. First it has to be demonstrated that there is any force produced that is in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, for a completely closed cavity.
I think that this test can be accomplished in LEO, at a much smaller cost than a synchronous or higher orbit test.
If it it could demonstrated that the EM Drive, as a closed cavity, without ejecting anything into space, or interacting with any external fields (other than gravity) can produce a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket it would be revolutionary.
The funding for these efforts has been miniscule up to now, so there are no good answers for your questions yet.
If it can be demonstrated that a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket can be produced, then real money will be available to answer your questions.
A definitive test of any space drive is testing beyond the influence of earth especially earth-sun and earth-moon interactions.
A great test would be to test with the solar wind and then against the solar wind well beyond the van Allen belt influences.
When pursuing space flight especially using any propulsion system, testing has to be done incrementally to be of value. For space drives, a space flight envelope development of sealed propulsion systems, reasonable increments of testing in scaling power and length of time is essential. For sensitive applications testing has to be done well outside earth and any other body of mass. Earth has gravitational and magnetic effects which will mask the true operation of the craft in deep space. Furthermore, ISS may contribute artifacts to any testing.
ISS testing is a consideration to proving the anomalies exist. However, ISS testing is not convincing enough for mainstream science which requires testing beyond earth's influences.
For a space drive, incremental testing would depend on what the ultimate goal is. If the space drive is to operate in the atmosphere, then there is no need to go to LEO or ISS in LEO. If the space drive is to operate in the solar system, then the final test will be outside earth's influence (or moon) and in the solar wind. If the space drive is going beyond the heliosphere on an interstellar mission, then one might want to send more than one test article beyond the heliosphere.
All the risks have to be reduced to an acceptable level. Sometimes this means disastrous failure. Keep in mind the US Space Shuttle was given a 1 in 9 chance of failure on first flight after extensive testing.
Testing at ISS is a stepping stone. However, one has to be careful since scientifically, there are many issues associated with testing in ISS and a few outside ISS. One should test if the thrust is the same inside the craft, outside the craft, and at some distance from ISS. Same test article, not three different systems.
The difficulties in LEO are the earth's magnetic field, gravitational field, and tidal effects are possible factors in the theory of operation and more importantly, in definitively determining whether there is an undue influence or con game frustum. To get at the specific effect, physicists remove major artifacts that may provide contributions to thrust such as thermal currents, thermal photons, ionization, ablation, contributions from cosmic radiation and other false positives.
dm
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
...
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.
Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.
GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.
OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe. Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe. As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.
Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal. Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time. No, it was not a question of spoon and forks ;)
.........
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.
SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.
The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.
Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....
As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...
The truth is SR is an incorrect approximation of GR, because in SR it is assumed that ALL inertial frames are equivalent, but in GR we can approximate an inertial tangent plane at "ANY" relative gravitational potential. They are not all equivalent. The same is true in Conformal Gravity, where space-time is flat but is scaled. There can be two inertial reference frames with different scale factors, and they are no longer equivalent because of this. Nothing causes more confusion than SR, simply because we are incorrectly taught that all inertial frames are equivalent, which is "not true".
-
...
The truth is SR is an incorrect approximation of GR, because in SR it is assumed that ALL inertial frames are equivalent, but in GR we can approximate an inertial tangent plane at "ANY" relative gravitational potential. They are not all equivalent. The same is true in Conformal Gravity, where space-time is flat but is scaled. There can be two inertial reference frames with different scale factors, and they are no longer equivalent because of this. Nothing causes more confusion than SR, simply because we are incorrectly taught that all inertial frames are equivalent, which is "not true".
going from SR to GR also has many other problems, for example:
* there is no potential energy, in general, in GR...
* conservation of energy and conservation of momentum in GR: it depends on what you mean by energy, what you mean by momentum and what you mean by conserved
* no center of mass in general in GR...
* many subtle issues in GR
-
So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector
I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…
I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf) which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…
Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.
The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.
But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. ???
The easiest way to get the vector potential "A" is through E = -dA/dt. We know what "E" is, so "A" will be the negative integral of E*dt. "A" will be circles around the z-axis with amplitude A ~ E/w. There is no need for the inverse-curl(B).
If you have the surface force density vector N/m2, and the surface loss density (Watts/m2) these numbers would be of interest.
Is there any way to calculate decay time at each point on the surface?
In the EM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/Coulomb
In the GEM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/kg
I expect that X = Omega/sqrt(4pi*G*e0), but my thoughts are along the lines that at 2.4GHz, the kinetic energy of the electric charge in a magnetic field greatly increases its kg/C, versus the at-rest inverse charge to mass ratio of the electrons. Thereby resulting in a stronger GEM force.
I'm still working on these ideas. Any help or criticism is appreciated.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1390455;image)
EDIT: Fix typos, damn spell-checker!
-
So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector
I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…
I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf) which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…
Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.
The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.
But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. ???
The easiest way to get the vector potential "A" is through E = -dA/dt. We know what "E" is, so "A" will be the negative integral of E*dt. "A" will be circles around the z-axis with amplitude A ~ E/w. There is no need for the inverse-curl(B).
If you have the surface force density vector N/m2, and the surface loss density (Watts/m2) these numbers would be of interest.
Is there any way to calculate decay time at each post on the surface?
In the EM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/Coulomb
In the GEM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/kg
I expect that X = Omega/sqrt(4pi*G*e0), but my thoughts are along the lines that at 2.4GHz, the kinetic energy of the electric charge in a magnetic field greatly increases its kg/C, versus the at-rest inverse charge to mass rate of the electrons. Thereby resulting in a stronger GEM force.
I'm still working on these ideas. Any help or criticism is appreciated.
Ahh okay, once I get the vector potential "A" what can I do with it? What does the magnetic vector potential conceptually mean?
I'll see what the surface force density vector and surface loss density look like for EW TM212 cavity tomorrow (unless you have another cavity in mind).
What do you mean by "decay time at each post"? Perhaps the time rate of change of the field at a particular set of positions?
Are you saying that electrons are gaining kinetic energy due to the magnetic field and distributing their asymmetric momentum to the cavity? So what happens if we increase the electron number density to that of an Argon plasma?
-
PotomacNeuron
....
However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.
Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you again.
Am I missing something?
The portion (I placed) in bold above does not seem a logical conclusion.., since the the test article experienced self acceleration in both directions, when the orientation of the test device was reversed.., even while any swirl torque would have remained constant in its direction, no matter what orientation the test article was in.
Well, unreliable is unreliable. You can't assume that the air bearing will reliably produce swirl torque toward the same direction when the frustum is mounted with opposite directions. The mass center changes, the way the moving part of the bearing leaning on the non-moving part changes. I am sure an air dynamics engineer can design an air bearing to show that it can change swirl torque direction when the moving part leans its opposite sides toward the non-moving part.
You are correct, you should not assume. However, your statement that follows is not usually true; in practice, that is not how air bearings typically respond. My direct experience with hundreds of air bearings in multiple configurations is that they not only reliably produce motoring (swirl) torque in only one direction but magnitude of this motoring torque is pretty consistent. What this means is that one can quite easily measure this and establish repeatability. Control over input pressure is the largest variable that spoils this repeatablity. I hedged at the beginning of this post mainly because Paul described their bearing a particularly troublesome; if their bearing is outside the norm, then more rigorous characterization is in order.
-
The easiest way to get the vector potential "A" is through E = -dA/dt. We know what "E" is, so "A" will be the negative integral of E*dt. "A" will be circles around the z-axis with amplitude A ~ E/w. There is no need for the inverse-curl(B).
If you have the surface force density vector N/m2, and the surface loss density (Watts/m2) these numbers would be of interest.
Is there any way to calculate decay time at each post on the surface?
In the EM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/Coulomb
In the GEM equation we have (1/c2) x Watts/kg
I expect that X = Omega/sqrt(4pi*G*e0), but my thoughts are along the lines that at 2.4GHz, the kinetic energy of the electric charge in a magnetic field greatly increases its kg/C, versus the at-rest inverse charge to mass rate of the electrons. Thereby resulting in a stronger GEM force.
I'm still working on these ideas. Any help or criticism is appreciated.
Ahh okay, once I get the vector potential "A" what can I do with it? What does the magnetic vector potential conceptually mean?
I'll see what the surface force density vector and surface loss density look like for EW TM212 cavity tomorrow (unless you have another cavity in mind).
What do you mean by "decay time at each post"? Perhaps the time rate of change of the field at a particular set of positions?
Are you saying that electrons are gaining kinetic energy due to the magnetic field and distributing their asymmetric momentum to the cavity? So what happens if we increase the electron number density to that of an Argon plasma?
The magnetic vector potential "A" can be thought of in many ways! It is the magnetic flux per meter. It represents the magnetic flux contained within the boundary of a current loop. Inside that loop, magnetic flux is either entering or exiting, or reversing direction, depending on the applied voltage. However you want to think of it, "A" is just a good measure of the flux parallel to the z axis. The flux is nothing but photons. In QM <A*A> is just the number of photons. Operate with the energy operator and you get the frequency. The gradients of "A" are the source-free EM field. You can do anything you can do with E & B! It avoids the use of tensors and is a more intuitive way to look at EM fields. (for me anyway)
I meant "Decay time at each point", spell checker messed that one up. We know the force per unit area is equal to the energy density. What I want to know is how quickly does it decay as a function of the geometry. In other words, does the energy and force dissipate faster on the big end, or the small end, or the side walls? At what rate?
Your last question is an interesting idea, but I have no idea if that's true or not. My conjecture at this point is simply that due to voltage drop in the copper, magnetic flux escapes the cavity "into the copper" and that is enough to create divergence. It is unlikely that it escapes all the way through the copper, skin effects would tell us that's not possible.
-
Hey, not so fast. The incident with the tuner and the re-tuning difficulties was actually mentioned. See page 8 of the published paper. Paul did not make a full length treatise out of it, but he did explain it at least in brief.
P.S. Paul had to repeat an ambient pressure pre-test because of the tuning mishap and he provided the graphs of both runs next to each other in the paper for comparison.
-
"Yup. At the time he was a federally funded employee who made the sin of omission of a major error of experimental protocol. Bad science. Bad, bad science. Smack that nose!!! Kudos to him for fessing up. We have all learned."
I, for one, don't think that tone is constructive. A little more civility and gentleness can breed mutual trust and collaboration. The world needs a hell of a lot of that these days.
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Yup.. I've been saying this for years (decades?). The observed mass of an electron is mostly due to induction.
Warptech,
Are you familiar with the work of Halton Arp, specifically his proposal that Quasars' red shifts do not indicate distance, but are intrinsic in nature. He suggests that quasars consist of young matter with little or no mass born from mature galaxies. As they age their mass increases (in discrete steps) until they develop into companion galaxies. I just thought it might relate to your theory.
-
Is it me or does this seem to happen a lot; I am referring specifically to accusations being thrown around that make no sense if you actually read the source material being quoted.
-
On a positive note, Univ of Arizona put together a nice article regarding emdrive with commentary from respected scientists: http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2016/11/ua-experts-weigh-in-on-nasas-em-drive
-
Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp
My Best,
Shell
Yup.. I've been saying this for years (decades?). The observed mass of an electron is mostly due to induction.
Warptech,
Are you familiar with the work of Halton Arp, specifically his proposal that Quasars' red shifts do not indicate distance, but are intrinsic in nature. He suggests that quasars consist of young matter with little or no mass born from mature galaxies. As they age their mass increases (in discrete steps) until they develop into companion galaxies. I just thought it might relate to your theory.
The work of Harold Aspden also showed that red shift was intrinsic to the electron energy level. He postulated 5 energy levels - we are in the 2nd highest, so 60% of the universe appears redshifted, 20% appears blueshifted, and 10% is unshifted. He abhored GR and derived E=Mc^2 from first principles without tensors (among other things). Unfortunately I believe his website is no defunct...well...some of it is still up there... http://www.haroldaspden.com/ He would have loved this forum :)
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space).
Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.
All:
The EW copper frustum was radially vented along the entire perimeter of both the big OD and small OD ends of the frustum, so any vented gas's momentum would be cancelled out. Thus all the copper frustum tests run in an ambient vacuum also had near the same vacuum level in the frustum itself. I also made sure that all venting was completed before running any tests and since it took hours to reach the desired vacuum levels of less than ~5x10^-5 Torr, all venting activities were long gone before testing started.
Best,
Thanks for that clarification. Was reviewing the wiki data and it looks as though the team was using the same frequency as when testing in an ambient atmosphere. However, you may then need to recallibrate the frequency for optimal performance in a vacuum. This is because the wavelength is longer in a vacuum then air.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Dept2/APPhys1/optics/optics/node7.html
Reading back through my response, it may not have come across as intended. That's what I get for writing responses at 2AM. :-)
Want to say that I admire the work you guys do. There are a lot of variables involved and just as many critics.
My post better worded: Did your team have a chance to try other frequencies while testing in a vacuum? Or did you find that 1.9371 GHz was the optimum frequency?
Reference: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
-
...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...
What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account. And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed. What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory. All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann. The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.
"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects" Alexander Chase
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
...
Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.
Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.
Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.
GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.
OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe. Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe. As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.
Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal. Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time. No, it was not a question of spoon and forks ;)
Again,
Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.
I presume that Shawyer's goal is to enable a propellant-less drive . The electromagnetically resonant truncated copper cone is just a means to that end. His theory is a particular path to that end.
Stating that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity is actually a dead end. I am surprised that he has not yet acknowledged this and come up with a more realistic model.
Dr. Rodal, you seem to have read a great deal more into my post or what you believe my intent was, than I intended. Even more than I see in what I wrote when I re-read my own words.
Granted I was nit picking.., i just do not believe your statement suggesting that GR was in some way a natural extension or evolution or ..., improvemt on SR is accurate.., though what I believe your general intent to be, was or is accurate.
The spoon and fork was just an exaggeration of the fact that after publishing SR, which did not even begin to try to describe gravity, Einstein undertook the task of doing just that, developing a geometric description of the tidal effects of gravitation. They are two separate undertakings describing different aspects of nature.
I added the comparison of GR and Newton's work only because, in that comparison there exists a literal connection of one theory being an improvement on the earlier, both adddressing the same observable aspect of nature, gravity...
In retrospect, I should have been clearer, probably even here in this post...
I do understand the intent of your earlier post, or believe I do, and did not make that clear. Just as I obviously did not make it clear that my only nit picking point was that even though GR followed SR, GR represented a description of the world and nature that SR did not even begin to acknowledge.
EDIT P.S. I have no issues with your assessment of Shawyer's theory...
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
-
Same frustum, same frustum orientation on torsion pendulum, should be same Lorentz force, sort of the same frustum heating.
Yet without the dielectric at the small end, the measured force is much larger and the direction reverses, small to big.
Dielectric 1st attachment. (2.0mN/kW, big to small)
Non dielectric 2nd attachment. (3.85mN/kW, small to big)
Note the force direction arrows on the images.
Please explain how Lorentz and thermal heating reverses the force direction and taking out the dielectric increases the measured force magnitude?
To me this is the smoking gun.
BTW Roger and I measured the same non dielectric static force generation direction as did NASA, small to big, which really causes problems for almost all the theories.
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
What the media seems to think here does not equate to what NASA probably thinks, as much as it has any kind of overall thought on it, which it probably doesn't.
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
What the media seems to think here does not equate to what NASA probably thinks, as much as it has any kind of overall thought on it, which it probably doesn't.
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
-
Gilo Cardozo talks about a transportation future that will blow us away and forever change transportation.
https://betterworkingworld.ey.com/purpose/passion-lead-purpose (watch the video)
Interesting Gilo is in a JV with SPR/Roger Shawyer to commercialise his EmDrive and according to Roger working to demo a wingless and propless drone in 2017.
Is Gilo giving us a taste of what is to come in a EmDrive driven transportation future?
Build a VTVL aircraft at less cost than a helicopter? Wonder what that may be? EmDrive powered drone?
No noise aircraft? Yup for sure EmDrive powered.
Explaining what the future holds for aviation, Gilo compares it to the horse and cart. In the 1900s, no one could imagine today’s world where millions of cars travel safely around the planet. Gilo believes that’s what it will be like for us with the aircraft of the future: "We burn through 100 tons of fuel to fly 200 people from here to Hong Kong – it's insane how much fuel we're burning, and I think there's just so much room for improvement. Yes, we accept it as the status quo, and it is amazing technology we use today, but it's nothing compared with where we're going."
-
Same frustum, same frustum orientation on torsion pendulum, should be same Lorentz force, sort of the same frustum heating.
Yet without the dielectric at the small end, the measured force is much larger and the direction reverses, small to big.
Dielectric 1st attachment. (2.0mN/kW, big to small)
Non dielectric 2nd attachment. (3.85mN/kW, small to big)
Note the force direction arrows on the images.
Please explain how Lorentz and thermal heating reverses the force direction and taking out the dielectric increases the measured force magnitude?
To me this is the smoking gun.
BTW Roger and I measured the same non dielectric static force generation direction as did NASA, small to big, which really causes problems for almost all the theories.
What kind of dielectric do you use?
As the EM drive works with with high powers you might get at some point a dielectric breakdown and this could damage the effect or even the dielectric component.
I recommend glimmer as dielectric .
-
Same frustum, same frustum orientation on torsion pendulum, should be same Lorentz force, sort of the same frustum heating.
Yet without the dielectric at the small end, the measured force is much larger and the direction reverses, small to big.
Dielectric 1st attachment. (2.0mN/kW, big to small)
Non dielectric 2nd attachment. (3.85mN/kW, small to big)
Note the force direction arrows on the images.
Please explain how Lorentz and thermal heating reverses the force direction and taking out the dielectric increases the measured force magnitude?
To me this is the smoking gun.
BTW Roger and I measured the same non dielectric static force generation direction as did NASA, small to big, which really causes problems for almost all the theories.
What kind of dielectric do you use?
As the EM drive works with with high powers you might get at some point a dielectric breakdown and this could damage the effect or even the dielectric component.
I recommend glimmer as dielectric .
SPR/Roger Shawyer stopped using dielectrics in 2003 and I have never used a dielectric. He stated they introduced losses, reducing Q and force generation. NASA tests showed that was correct.
We can see it the NASA test, the force generated with a dielectric (2.0mN/kW) was much lower than the force generated without the dielectric (3.85mN/kW).
More importantly the force direction reversal supports Roger's radiation pressure theory as the end of the EmDrive with the shortest 1/2 guide wavelength (higher radiation pressure) was where the force was directed to as attached.
Shows thrust direction is the function of standing EM wave geometry, not the EMDrive geometry.
According to radiation pressure theory, the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave will have the highest radiation pressure and thus the force will be directed to that end plate as shown.
As the force direction reversed by just removing the dielectric and doing nothing else, the force direction change rules out Lorentz force which would not swap as the wiring was not changed.
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
NAsa's name gives it credence in articles as opposed to DIY names. Unfortunately NASA barely funded the research, far less than the popsci media probably realizes. Paul Kocyla is next in line is my guess as he is making good progress with a redesign of his miniemdrive that he is working on with Dr Tajmar of Dresden University. If all goes well it may become the first space trial of an emdrive:
https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
It is the media who emphasize the prefix "NASA's" to EmDrive. I do not think NASA wants its name to be associated with EmDrive. On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
-
I once read a old story from the philips incandescent licht bulb company's NATLAB.
They enhanced the performance of these lightbulbs by filling them with argon gas.
I don't know what kind of gas is added into the frustrum (maybe just air) , but some tests with (inert) gas filled frustrums would be very interesting, and might get surprising results.
-
I once read a old story from the philips incandescent licht bulb company's NATLAB.
They enhanced the performance of these lightbulbs by filling them with argon gas.
I don't know what kind of gas is added into the frustrum (maybe just air) , but some tests with (inert) gas filled frustrums would be very interesting, and might get surprising results.
There is a patent applied for using ammonia gas:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5fa7qa/patent_application_filed_for_em_drive_using/
-
A gentle reminder to the readers that gain medium and em drive architecture has been discussed at length in previous posts and threads. IIRC, Ammonia and noble gases seem most useful as a gain medium due to their mostly inert and coolant properties. To reduce noise, i.e. circular rehashing of old arguments, I strongly strongly recommend all potential commenters to completely read the previous threads.
Error sources such as Lorentz force, electrostriction, thermal jets, thermal buckling, mechanical resonance, magnetic field interaction, incorrect damping, wind, moisture, evanescent wave effects, evaporation, ionization, and much much more has been exhaustively discussed. Help progress the research not mire this thread in philosophical or copenhagen interpretation/CoM/CoE discussions. For example, help further develop Warptech's nascent thrust equation.
-
Concerning patent applications claiming the use of Argon to stimulate emission at ~24 GHz of the EM Drive,
besides it being obvious (from the invention and applicaiton of the Maser decades ago), such an idea was published in these threads by me a long time ago, and such an idea was periodically discussed in these threads.
It is a basic tenet of patents (whereby the Government awards a monopoly to somebody for a finite period of time in exchange for fully disclosing a new invention) that no patents can be validly awarded and enforced for anything that was already described and published in the open literature.
See the doctrine of prior art:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
and defensive publication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication
and the case that clarified non-obviousness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.
===> Beware of people taking any ideas previously described and published in these NSF threads or other publications (including all the information that NASA Eagleworks, Shawyer, Tajmar and numerous EM Drive aficionados have made available), applying for a patent based on those ideas and then attempting to sell such patent applications to buyers that may be unaware of Patent Law. If interested please get advice from an Intellectual Property Lawyer.
-
Why does every article out there keeps calling it "NASA's em drive" when NASA didn't even want to touch it with a barge pole for almost 2 decades? They and everyone in the science world kept looking down their noses at it and calling it crackpot and fringe science?
Now NASA thinks it can claim it as theirs? Really?
It is the media who emphasize the prefix "NASA's" to EmDrive. I do not think NASA wants its name to be associated with EmDrive. On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I suspect you're probably right considering how conservative NASA likes to be with their science announcements in general.
-
Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?
This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?
The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.
As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.
Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space).
Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.
All:
The EW copper frustum was radially vented along the entire perimeter of both the big OD and small OD ends of the frustum, so any vented gas's momentum would be cancelled out. Thus all the copper frustum tests run in an ambient vacuum also had near the same vacuum level in the frustum itself. I also made sure that all venting was completed before running any tests and since it took hours to reach the desired vacuum levels of less than ~5x10^-5 Torr, all venting activities were long gone before testing started.
Best,
Thanks for that clarification. Was reviewing the wiki data and it looks as though the team was using the same frequency as when testing in an ambient atmosphere. However, you may then need to recallibrate the frequency for optimal performance in a vacuum. This is because the wavelength is longer in a vacuum then air.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Dept2/APPhys1/optics/optics/node7.html
Reading back through my response, it may not have come across as intended. That's what I get for writing responses at 2AM. :-)
Want to say that I admire the work you guys do. There are a lot of variables involved and just as many critics.
My post better worded: Did your team have a chance to try other frequencies while testing in a vacuum? Or did you find that 1.9371 GHz was the optimum frequency?
Reference: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Therealjjj77:
See the attached pdf file with my documented Kentucky Windage air-to-vacuum tuning issue defined. My makeshift solution for the EW in-vacuum test runs was to add a ~0.6 MHz frequency shift to all my in-air Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) resonant frequency data and hoped that the PLL would pull the VCO to the correct in-vacuum frequency. That worked most of the time, but...
Best, Paul M.
-
the tiresomely cynical and mocking youtuber ThunderFoot thinks emdrive thrust is due to a 'radiometer' effect : a hot plate tranfers KE to incident air particles that act as propellant.
I have to admit I didn't think of this effect.
If the emdrive has an asymmetric radiometer effect then it will produce thrust in air, but much less in a vacuum.
How does emdrive in-air to in-vacuum results compare?
Has this effect been accounted for and excluded?
Can you refute thunderfoot's claim from existing results?
https://youtu.be/jCAqDA8IfR4?t=22m6s
-
Can you refute thunderfoot's claim from existing results?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAqDA8IfR4?t=22m6s
He goes on to finish that bit with a correction. The team actually got the same signature with and without an atmosphere. Really the whole video was a tepid jab rather than a full on takedown.
-
the tiresomely cynical and mocking youtuber ThunderFoot thinks emdrive thrust is due to a 'radiometer' effect : a hot plate tranfers KE to incident air particles that act as propellant.
I have to admit I didn't think of this effect.
If the emdrive has an asymmetric radiometer effect then it will produce thrust in air, but much less in a vacuum.
How does emdrive in-air to in-vacuum results compare?
Has this effect been accounted for and excluded?
Can you refute thunderfoot's claim from existing results?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAqDA8IfR4?t=22m6s
I assume he had been talking about the Crooke's radiometer effect (I haven't watched the video). This is something I had considered as a possible contributing factor.
That effect actually works best in partial vacuum. I don't have time to double check right now, but I had checked before, and I think the vacuum level in the NASA tests is on the low end of where that effect remains significant. I am not sure if the geometry of the emDrive compared to a normal radiometer could affect the magnitude of this or what pressure range it can be observed at.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
I know you think that somehow the emDrive is 100% proven, but to most scientists it still looks like experimental errors are the most likely cause of any positive results. Any lack of funding is because they still haven't produced a signal that stands out from the noise (what EW measured was smaller than the thermal effects, and could easily be due to a different thermal effect with a different time constant.) Given the lack of conclusive results and the remaining high probability that this is still just experimental error, it would make sense that funding would go to technologies that have a reasonable chance at success due to their better chance of success and not because of some petty politics.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
When you are still arguing, I have been anxiously waiting for the space EMDRIVE test data in our country.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
When you are still arguing, I have been anxiously waiting for the space EMDRIVE test data in our country.
Thats what I call a bombshell. :o :o :o Can you give us more details? Who? When? Is it in space already? Please share! Is China really that far from the rest of the world?
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
I know you think that somehow the emDrive is 100% proven, but to most scientists it still looks like experimental errors are the most likely cause of any positive results. Any lack of funding is because they still haven't produced a signal that stands out from the noise (what EW measured was smaller than the thermal effects, and could easily be due to a different thermal effect with a different time constant.) Given the lack of conclusive results and the remaining high probability that this is still just experimental error, it would make sense that funding would go to technologies that have a reasonable chance at success due to their better chance of success and not because of some petty politics.
The only problem is if it is ever proven they end up looking like they've missed out on important technology and people will question why you looked at this and then dismissed it.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
I know you think that somehow the emDrive is 100% proven, but to most scientists it still looks like experimental errors are the most likely cause of any positive results. Any lack of funding is because they still haven't produced a signal that stands out from the noise (what EW measured was smaller than the thermal effects, and could easily be due to a different thermal effect with a different time constant.) Given the lack of conclusive results and the remaining high probability that this is still just experimental error, it would make sense that funding would go to technologies that have a reasonable chance at success due to their better chance of success and not because of some petty politics.
The only problem is if it is ever proven they end up looking like they've missed out on important technology and people will question why you looked at this and then dismissed it.
The emdrive argument has switched from concept to experimentation which is where it should have been. Dismissing a concept without experiments is a safe approach and many take this route. Unfortunately for them, the experiment has yielded results which need more replication. A conceptual position against ew and diyers experimental results now forces them to move beyond words. They must now conduct their own experiments to prove their position that it's unquantified systematics or common errors. Without their own evidence, all they have are words. I do not see antagonists having the time, skill or interest is backing up their beliefs with their own data. IOW, I wouldn't give them much attention or concern.
-
Reading the NASA paper published last month, one of the main issues in verifying thrust effects is that thermal effects still have a significant effect on frustrum movement, even if its just through shifts in the COG, which are in the same order of magnitude (although following different dynamics) than the actual thrust force.
A suggested improvement is to modify the arrangement to minimize COG changes caused by thermal expansion/shrinkage.
Wouldn't it make sense to instead make sure to enter a "thermal steady state"? As such I would propose to run a EM-drive prototype continuously powered during an experiment, and start measurements only once power components have reached steady state operating temperatures, where heat production and heat dissipation from heat sinks and cavity itself are at equalibrium
Modifying the thrust vector would then not be done by turning the main HF power source on/off, but by altering more subtle parameters, such as resonance frequency tuning. (AKA deliberately detune the system to eliminate the thrust force)
All HF components would continuously operate at the select power output throughout the duration of the experiment. As such the force, and how it changes based on small differences in the cavity resonance and phase shift properties could be studied without any significant thermal expansion or shrinkage affecting measurement results. The entire system could be calibrated for this thermal steady state to achieve higher resolution.
Of course for that, the HF components would have to be rated to operate continuously for several hours or longer.
(This might have been discussed before. I haven't had the chance to read through all 150 pages of this as well as all 7 previous threads. If so, feel free to moderate this post.)
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
When you are still arguing, I have been anxiously waiting for the space EMDRIVE test data in our country.
My info is the Chinese EmDrive space test is a non cryo EmDrive designed and tested on Earth by Prof Yang and a new Chinese engineering team.
So those who wrote and posted Prof Yang had retired were posting not correct data.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
Sorry to say but the reverse force direction with no dielectric totally destroys Lorentz force being behind the effect.
Doing 100mN/kW or 10,000N/kW is just EnDrive Enginerring.
See you in LEO or way beyond.
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
I know you think that somehow the emDrive is 100% proven, but to most scientists it still looks like experimental errors are the most likely cause of any positive results. Any lack of funding is because they still haven't produced a signal that stands out from the noise (what EW measured was smaller than the thermal effects, and could easily be due to a different thermal effect with a different time constant.) Given the lack of conclusive results and the remaining high probability that this is still just experimental error, it would make sense that funding would go to technologies that have a reasonable chance at success due to their better chance of success and not because of some petty politics.
Your opinion is incorrect as it has always been.
Would suggest you spend intellect time on theory development instead of wasted time on stating EmDrive can't work because of X.
EmDrive works today as well as it worked in 1989 as per Roger's 1st patent.
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
My understanding is the Chinese experimental satellite has many experiments to conduct, the non cryo EmDrive from Prof Yang's new team is one of the experiments.
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
My understanding is the Chinese experimental satellite has many experiments to conduct, the non cryo EmDrive from Prof Yang's new team is one of the experiments.
When do they have telemetry of any results, you think? And will they share it?
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
My understanding is the Chinese experimental satellite has many experiments to conduct, the non cryo EmDrive from Prof Yang's new team is one of the experiments.
When do they have telemetry of any results, you think? And will they share it?
My sources suggest the data will be shared by Prof Yang's team.
The EmDrive works and it is time for deniers to move past failed reasons why it can't work to why it does work and to address all the reported experimental data in any theory.
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
My understanding is the Chinese experimental satellite has many experiments to conduct, the non cryo EmDrive from Prof Yang's new team is one of the experiments.
When do they have telemetry of any results, you think? And will they share it?
My sources suggest the data will be shared by Prof Yang's team.
The EmDrive works and it is time for deniers to move past failed reasons why it can't work to why it does work and to address all the reported experimental data in any theory.
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
-
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
Just hypothetically, what happens if everyone flies around in those? With thrust forces in the kilonewton range.
If the EM drive creates its acceleration by "pushing against the quantum vacuum", would that yield measurable residual effects for matter riding the wake of an em drive? Like thrust fluctuations in another EM drive flying directly behind a first one, or measurable forces on masses that are placed in the thrust vector? Or spacetime distortions and eddies, like some proposed warp drive designs would create?
Could the presence and operation of an EM drive be detected from a distance?
(I know I'm mixing a lot of concepts here that have nothing directly to do with each other. Just food for thoughts)
-
i heard rumours that the Chinese already launced a experimental em-drive into space.
They still waiting for results. :o
My understanding is the Chinese experimental satellite has many experiments to conduct, the non cryo EmDrive from Prof Yang's new team is one of the experiments.
When do they have telemetry of any results, you think? And will they share it?
My sources suggest the data will be shared by Prof Yang's team.
The EmDrive works and it is time for deniers to move past failed reasons why it can't work to why it does work and to address all the reported experimental data in any theory.
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
Gilo's existing fossil rotary engine tech can generate a lot of kWh of electricity per unit mass. Easy for that power plant to generate the kW Rf needed to drive a cryo EmDrive propless and wingless drone or helicopter replacement.
-
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
Just hypothetically, what happens if everyone flies around in those? With thrust forces in the kilonewton range.
If the EM drive creates its acceleration by "pushing against the quantum vacuum", would that yield measurable residual effects for matter riding the wake of an em drive? Like thrust fluctuations in another EM drive flying directly behind a first one, or measurable forces on masses that are placed in the thrust vector? Or spacetime distortions and eddies, like some proposed warp drive designs would create?
Could the presence and operation of an EM drive be detected from a distance?
(I know I'm mixing a lot of concepts here that have nothing directly to do with each other. Just food for thoughts)
It doesn't push against the quantum vacuum.
The force reversal with and without a dielectric just killed that theory, as it did Lorentz force, thermal expansion, MiHsC and most other theories.
-
It doesn't push against the quantum vacuum.
The force reversal with and without a dielectric just killed that theory, as it did Lorentz force, thermal expansion, MiHsC and most other theories.
So the theoretical explanation as proposed by the NASA paper is already obsolete? Sorry, my theoretical background isn't strong, that implication wasn't obvious to me.
-
It doesn't push against the quantum vacuum.
The force reversal with and without a dielectric just killed that theory, as it did Lorentz force, thermal expansion, MiHsC and most other theories.
So the theoretical explanation as proposed by the NASA paper is already obsolete? Sorry, my theoretical background isn't strong, that implication wasn't obvious to me.
Phil/TheTraveller is a well appreciated contributor to this forum, but I don't think he has the authority in theoretical physics to dismiss all these theories at this moment. Neither have I, but I might have a little more background in these matters and I certainly wouldn't put such strong a statement now.
What is probably more important, is that Phil has a lot more confidence in the explanations Roger Shawyer gives about his (reported) observations than most other regular forum contributors do.
;-)
-
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
Just hypothetically, what happens if everyone flies around in those? With thrust forces in the kilonewton range.
If the EM drive creates its acceleration by "pushing against the quantum vacuum", would that yield measurable residual effects for matter riding the wake of an em drive? Like thrust fluctuations in another EM drive flying directly behind a first one, or measurable forces on masses that are placed in the thrust vector? Or spacetime distortions and eddies, like some proposed warp drive designs would create?
Could the presence and operation of an EM drive be detected from a distance?
(I know I'm mixing a lot of concepts here that have nothing directly to do with each other. Just food for thoughts)
Is quantum vacuum(QV) local(Is it even correct wording?)? I mean relative to sun alone we are moving 30km/s so if it's not 'local' we literally fly through QV at high speeds that there shouln't be much disturbance because a second later the QV we 'disturbed' is not even on earth anymore.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
BTW what is your take on the stronger and reversed thrust direction when Paul tested the same frustum, torsion pendulum position and wiring position but without the dielectric? Surely removing the dielectric could not reverse and increase the strength of any Lorentz force?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1614369#msg1614369
If you note on the images, Paul did measure the Lorentz force (which didn't change) and used it to calc the resultant no Lorentz force values, being 2.0uN/W with dielectric big to small and 3.85uN/W small to big no dielectric. Note the direction of the force arrows in the 2 images.
To me this strongly says the forces that Paul measured are not the result of Lorentz forces, which for sure are there, were measured and the raw force values were adjusted for the Lorentz background forces.
The question is how to build a 100mN thruster when the validity of 100uN result is still in question.
When you are still arguing, I have been anxiously waiting for the space EMDRIVE test data in our country.
My info is the Chinese EmDrive space test is a non cryo EmDrive designed and tested on Earth by Prof Yang and a new Chinese engineering team.
So those who wrote and posted Prof Yang had retired were posting not correct data.
Space propulsion experiment is confidential to Professor yang. R & D efforts since 2014, Professor Yang has not known.
-
looks like a old fahioned spacerace.. Shall i begin to save for a flying car ? ;)
Just hypothetically, what happens if everyone flies around in those? With thrust forces in the kilonewton range.
If the EM drive creates its acceleration by "pushing against the quantum vacuum", would that yield measurable residual effects for matter riding the wake of an em drive? Like thrust fluctuations in another EM drive flying directly behind a first one, or measurable forces on masses that are placed in the thrust vector? Or spacetime distortions and eddies, like some proposed warp drive designs would create?
Could the presence and operation of an EM drive be detected from a distance?
(I know I'm mixing a lot of concepts here that have nothing directly to do with each other. Just food for thoughts)
Is quantum vacuum(QV) local(Is it even correct wording?)? I mean relative to sun alone we are moving 30km/s so if it's not 'local' we literally fly through QV at high speeds that there shouln't be much disturbance because a second later the QV we 'disturbed' is not even on earth anymore.
My understanding of QV is that it means the vacuum has no energy(or in real world it is isolated from most outside energy influences).
If general relativity is true, then there is no such thing as "zero" velocity as everything is relative to other objects.
-
On the opposite to your impression, mine is that NASA will make announcement to keep itself away from EmDrive soon.
I agree with that assessment as otherwise they would have renewed Paul's contract and properly funded EW to build a next generation 100mN thruster that can exceed Ion drive efficiency. But then maybe that would upset a lot of other electric propulsion projects NASA is funding?
I know you think that somehow the emDrive is 100% proven, but to most scientists it still looks like experimental errors are the most likely cause of any positive results. Any lack of funding is because they still haven't produced a signal that stands out from the noise (what EW measured was smaller than the thermal effects, and could easily be due to a different thermal effect with a different time constant.) Given the lack of conclusive results and the remaining high probability that this is still just experimental error, it would make sense that funding would go to technologies that have a reasonable chance at success due to their better chance of success and not because of some petty politics.
Your opinion is incorrect as it has always been.
Would suggest you spend intellect time on theory development instead of wasted time on stating EmDrive can't work because of X.
EmDrive works today as well as it worked in 1989 as per Roger's 1st patent.
Emphasis mine.
That is not what my post said. I suggest you learn to read what people say and consider it instead of putting words in their mouth, and dismissing them just because they disagree with you.
If you want a working theory you should open your mind to all of the other theories here.
Thats what I call a bombshell. :o :o :o Can you give us more details? Who? When? Is it in space already? Please share! Is China really that far from the rest of the world?
Both TT and oyzw are making this claim, but since TT claims the experiment is by Yang, and oyzw claims it is confidential to Yang, At least one of them has bad sources, or is spreading misinformation. Since neither has provided any evidence their claims are true, and their claims amount to claiming they have access to Chinese classified info, this is little better than a conspiracy theory at this point.
Edit: fixed quotes
-
Thought this was interesting, but only because it seemed to imply interaction with the quantum vacuum.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1641/?lang
but hey, I'm a computer geek and don't know these things for certain. Nonetheless- it seemed to be another pebble in the directions the EM drive have been pointing at.
-
Thread 9 time:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0
--