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.
Quote from: mwvp on 11/23/2016 08:33 pmPerhaps 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.
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.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 07:12 pmThe 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. It seems you try to describe something likeQ=(2/SkinDepth)(∫Electromagnetic Energy Density dV/ ∫ Electromagnetic Energy Density dA)while from your viewpoint "Q" stands for "∫Q per field node (π/2)", right?
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee what you think?
Quote from: X_RaY on 11/24/2016 07:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 07:12 pmThe 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. It seems you try to describe something likeQ=(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.
Quote from: rq3 on 11/24/2016 02:29 amQuote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, 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"
Quote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, 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).
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s margins? yes? thnx , FL
Quote from: Star One on 11/24/2016 07:57 pmList of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee 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.
Quote from: Star One on 11/24/2016 07:57 pmList of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee what you think?Good points, most of them. Some I also mentioned earlier.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll 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.
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.
Quote from: Peter Lauwer on 11/24/2016 08:19 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/24/2016 07:57 pmList of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee 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.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/23/2016 05:09 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:40 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/23/2016 03:27 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:04 pmI 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.ToddTodd:"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.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:40 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/23/2016 03:27 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:04 pmI 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.ToddTodd:"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.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/23/2016 03:27 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:04 pmI 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.ToddTodd:"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.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 03:04 pmI 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.ToddTodd:"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 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
Quote from: Star One on 11/24/2016 07:57 pmList of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee 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
Quote from: X_RaY on 11/24/2016 08:23 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll 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.
