...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) 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
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?
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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:04 amExperimentation 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".
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:04 amExperimentation 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.
[–]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.
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 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...
Quote from: Flyby on 09/13/2016 07:53 amAlthough 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.
[–]StarDriveEW 5 points 19 hours ago There is no magical 'correct' mode.
Quote from: tleach on 09/13/2016 07:26 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:04 amExperimentation 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 08:03 amQuote from: Flyby on 09/13/2016 07:53 amAlthough 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, Quote[–]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.
How do you know?
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 MarchFriendswood, TX
Quote from: jötunn on 09/13/2016 02:54 pmHow do you know?I emailed him and asked.QuotePhil: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 MarchFriendswood, TXhttps://www.reddit.com/user/StarDriveEW
Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/12/2016 06:06 pm...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.
...Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
Quote from: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 07:43 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/12/2016 06:06 pm...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.
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.