Quote from: SeeShells on 05/30/2015 01:08 amForbes...http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/The reason I’m writing this? If this force engine were to work, every industry you invest in will be turned upside down. Admittedly, this is a very early call. Inventing a time machine would be more dramatic than EmDrive but not a lot more. A force engine would be like inventing fire.Love the article Shell. History is full of disruptions, some natural, some forced. An example of forced disruption was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracyWhat EMers are hoping for is natural, progressive disruption rather than forced, capitalistic disruptions like the interurban buyouts.
Forbes...http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/The reason I’m writing this? If this force engine were to work, every industry you invest in will be turned upside down. Admittedly, this is a very early call. Inventing a time machine would be more dramatic than EmDrive but not a lot more. A force engine would be like inventing fire.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/30/2015 02:30 amQuote from: frobnicat on 05/29/2015 10:46 pm...Actually a photon rocket is not really "propellantless" as it throws away photons. We could say that its exhaust is "pure energy" (in the sense that the exhaust particles have no rest mass), ...CoE difference (between photon rocket and EM drive) appears clearly when comparing behaviour at relativistic speeds, it needs high mass->energy conversion yield and low payload fraction to reach 2/3 light speed with photon rocket. Should the payload at 2/3 light speed hit a rock, the mass equivalent of released energy couldn't possibly be higher than the mass "burnt" to energy during acceleration. This inequality is built in, from the ground up. EM drive proponents (Shawyer, White) sell us spacecraft that could reach 2/3 light speed on fission reactors, with high payload fraction where only a few % of initial mass (at most) was burnt to energy, and when hitting a rock at final velocity release an energy with a mass equivalent much much higher than the mass burnt. Then they say, by the way this must be respecting CoE, and introduce some (as yet to be clearly defined) penalty against some mysterious "gained velocity", not intrinsically built in from the ground up but after the fact as an ad hoc inequality, and what is more scandalous fail to caution (or care) that this little caveat was not used at all when setting up mission profiles that do clearly get us to more energy than was put in. If one is to be taken seriously, one can't say "this is respecting CoE" in one chapter, and say "this could go up to 2/3 light speed on nuclear reactor" the next chapter. This is like saying that x<10 in a preamble, developing other equations showing that x=100, and concluding that is is so great to have x=100 and that everything is fine since x<10. And then when people complain, argue that x needs special treatment, that its values is nothing like we knew before... Grumble, growl, moan...I wonder if some realize how much power is in the atom. If I convert the mass of a just a dollar bill into energy I have the equivalent energy released in the first atomic bomb. ~63 TJ
Quote from: frobnicat on 05/29/2015 10:46 pm...Actually a photon rocket is not really "propellantless" as it throws away photons. We could say that its exhaust is "pure energy" (in the sense that the exhaust particles have no rest mass), ...CoE difference (between photon rocket and EM drive) appears clearly when comparing behaviour at relativistic speeds, it needs high mass->energy conversion yield and low payload fraction to reach 2/3 light speed with photon rocket. Should the payload at 2/3 light speed hit a rock, the mass equivalent of released energy couldn't possibly be higher than the mass "burnt" to energy during acceleration. This inequality is built in, from the ground up. EM drive proponents (Shawyer, White) sell us spacecraft that could reach 2/3 light speed on fission reactors, with high payload fraction where only a few % of initial mass (at most) was burnt to energy, and when hitting a rock at final velocity release an energy with a mass equivalent much much higher than the mass burnt. Then they say, by the way this must be respecting CoE, and introduce some (as yet to be clearly defined) penalty against some mysterious "gained velocity", not intrinsically built in from the ground up but after the fact as an ad hoc inequality, and what is more scandalous fail to caution (or care) that this little caveat was not used at all when setting up mission profiles that do clearly get us to more energy than was put in. If one is to be taken seriously, one can't say "this is respecting CoE" in one chapter, and say "this could go up to 2/3 light speed on nuclear reactor" the next chapter. This is like saying that x<10 in a preamble, developing other equations showing that x=100, and concluding that is is so great to have x=100 and that everything is fine since x<10. And then when people complain, argue that x needs special treatment, that its values is nothing like we knew before... Grumble, growl, moan...
...Actually a photon rocket is not really "propellantless" as it throws away photons. We could say that its exhaust is "pure energy" (in the sense that the exhaust particles have no rest mass), ...
Would Einstein say "oh das even spookier'!
Here is a shortened URL http://bit.ly/1Ja6QLVto that humongous URL that is screwing up the page formatting here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382092#msg1382092Could you please change it to this shortened one ? so as to recover the original page formatting?Thanks
Ok - I have a meep control file to share (coded in Scheme). Let me give pointers regarding Meep.Attached find images of the cavity, the stablized wave form (16 peroids with a very wide Gaussian noise bandwitth) and the control file. Replace the .txt extension with .ctl so Meep will recognize the control file. I have commented the control file in an attempt to share some lessons learned but of course I've missed some things. Ask, but read the comments first.aero
Quote from: aero on 05/30/2015 06:14 pmOk - I have a meep control file to share (coded in Scheme). Let me give pointers regarding Meep.Attached find images of the cavity, the stablized wave form (16 peroids with a very wide Gaussian noise bandwitth) and the control file. Replace the .txt extension with .ctl so Meep will recognize the control file. I have commented the control file in an attempt to share some lessons learned but of course I've missed some things. Ask, but read the comments first.aeroAero, your name is very close to Hero. Nice job!
Ok - I have a meep control file to share (coded in Scheme). Let me give pointers regarding Meep. Ask, but read the comments first.aero
Oh Baby, here is a test stand floating on air, ready for baby EM drive ...
Quote from: Rodal on 05/30/2015 08:36 pmOh Baby, here is a test stand floating on air, ready for baby EM drive ...Is this "baby" EM Drive supposed to have lower thrust according to any of the theories? Or is thrust completely based on resonance?
Some theories have thrust inversely proportional to frequency (hence this one at 24 GHz should have ~10 times less thrust than the ones at 2.4 GHz so far tested, based on inverse of linear proportionality alone)...And you can put a lot of these ones together, and it looks much neater and Hi-Tech If it works, it can go right away into a CubeSat
Quote from: aero on 05/30/2015 06:14 pmOk - I have a meep control file to share (coded in Scheme). Let me give pointers regarding Meep. Ask, but read the comments first.aeroI've been working to get meep up and going and this answers some basic questions. I think I'm going to do fine. Thanks for the fine work. PS: Trying to get it up and working, my head exploded.http://ribkit.sourceforge.net/sler/images/screenshots/sler-v0.1alpha.jpg
Sorry for my novice question - but is it considered within the realm of physical possibilities that a gravity well is being created (or shifted?) such that the device falls into it rather than being thrusted toward it? If it is remotely feasible, could an experimenter rule it out or confirm by placing a second object on a scale above the device to see if it also falls into the gravity well?I'm well out of my depth, in spite of endless hours spent trying to gain some small understanding of modern physics, but it's refreshing to see all of this detailed discussion going on in an open forum, where the science is given priority over profit motives and secrecy. It'd be nearly as interesting to eventually find what sort of "boring" explanation may have so far alluded so many bright minds, as it would be to find some significant scientific understanding requiring revision.
Some theories have thrust inversely proportional to frequency (hence this one at 24 GHz should have ~10 times less thrust than the ones at 2.4 GHz so far tested, based on inverse of linear proportionality alone)...So, yes, substantially less thrust, according to those theories.Higher frequency also means more geometrical attenuation, perhaps that's good, if it also has higher Q to go with itAnd you can put a lot of these ones together, and it looks much neater and Hi-Tech If it works, it can go right away into a CubeSat
Oh Baby, here is a test stand floating on air, ready for baby EM drive The whole system in one neat package floating on air (magnetically) (Watch out for leaking external field interaction )
Quote from: Rodal on 05/30/2015 08:36 pmOh Baby, here is a test stand floating on air, ready for baby EM drive The whole system in one neat package floating on air (magnetically) (Watch out for leaking external field interaction )Well, if they get it together, I can put that one into a working vacuum system tomorrow !!