I see that Shawyer's "latest paper" contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?
No the laser is secured to the center of the beam.Kinda like this... sorry for the quicky in paint.ShellNote: Added second laser to setup for control. A sharp lurker here and bless them saw that the PDF and my how I explained it was different. My bad and thanks to them for getting it.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 09:36 pmI see that Shawyer's "latest paper" contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?Just a little follow-up here to answer a question that some may be asking: "What is a reasonable value of Newtons/Watt such that overunity could be achieved with a rotary device in a terrestrial lab?"It's a mechanical limitation. An aggressive spec. is something like 1,000 gee with a 1 metre radius arm. That's about 1,000 rpm and a tangential velocity of about 100 m/s. That in turn calls for a minimum k-value of 0.02 N/W.Keep that figure in mind.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/06/2015 05:35 amOne way to pin down this velocity dependent stuff is to imagine a rotary implementation. frobincat has already provided all the details of that, and I've discussed it too, going back to 1996 with my first chat with Woodward.I wanted to suggest a possible parallel to propellant-less propulsion in a rotary sense. Two examples come to mind that might qualify in this category. One is the device in this video. . The device regardless of how fast it rotates can still have energy added to it by torquing against the force of the pull on the weights that pull towards the larger radius. I think it qualifies as propellantless. Would these devices be in the same category as a propellantless thruster rotating in circles? If so, what is to stop them from reaching overunity? ...2nd video if you click the post.
One way to pin down this velocity dependent stuff is to imagine a rotary implementation. frobincat has already provided all the details of that, and I've discussed it too, going back to 1996 with my first chat with Woodward.
All YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 11:53 pmAll YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.This is a real engineered device and if you look at how it is made you can see how it will accelerate if you give it a spin and then give the weights torque [back and forth depending on if the weights are moving out or coming in]. (It is the same concept as that of a swing). I don't believe the owner of the original video is claiming it is over unity and I am not (one later video does appear to claim so) but you claimed a propellant-less thruster above a certain efficiency would be over-unity. The parallel line of though is then to compare the thrust to another known form of propellant-less thrust.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 07/08/2015 12:01 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 11:53 pmAll YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.This is a real engineered device and if you look at how it is made you can see how it will accelerate if you give it a spin and then give the weights torque [back and forth depending on if the weights are moving out or coming in]. (It is the same concept as that of a swing). I don't believe the owner of the original video is claiming it is over unity and I am not (one later video does appear to claim so) but you claimed a propellant-less thruster above a certain efficiency would be over-unity. The parallel line of though is then to compare the thrust to another known form of propellant-less thrust. As frobnicat, deltaMass and others have much better said: the claims of overunity logically follow from the claims of thrust per watt, independent from speed. No known device produces constant thrust at any speed, being that the defining characteristic of the fabled "reactionless" drives.You say it produces 2 Newtons per watt? well, then when it exceeds 3 m/s it contains more kinetic energy than the energy you have spent pushing it. Anything faster and it's all gain for you.It would behave as a windmill, extracting energy from the wind. But in this case, without wind or any known energy source.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/07/2015 09:23 pmQuote from: demofsky on 07/07/2015 07:59 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............@CW has the right idea, squeezed light is trying to move to the big end where it is less squeezed, and pushes the frustum the other way in the process. The main issue I have with @SeeShell's idea is that, there is not enough energy in the cavity to create a significant amount of "massive" virtual particles. It would be difficult to even prove that a single electron-positron pair is being created at these energy levels, even at the surface of the antenna. What is in the QV is orders of magnitude too small to couple to, at these energies. IF it could work as Dr. White surmised, as a QV MHD thruster, the amount of current density and magnetic field strength required would be enormous. The QV energy density is concentrated above frequencies > 1022Hz. Frequency in the EM drive is many orders of magnitude below what the QV would need to couple to it.ToddI hate the word virtual particles because they are not particles at all but disturbances in the fields of two passing real world particles, but the forces that are created bear characteristics of real particles. What got me going on this is reading Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's Q&A on virtual particles.http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ This is a good primer for anybody to read."Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.On virtual particles...."It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass."...And this is what I feel the evanescent waves are acting on. Not a real particle at all but just a group of wave functions created that can carry energy and momentum. If they can carry it they can be acted on.Still make sense? ShellNote: WaveTech, I really want to thank you for taking your time to reply to little old lady me.
Quote from: demofsky on 07/07/2015 07:59 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............@CW has the right idea, squeezed light is trying to move to the big end where it is less squeezed, and pushes the frustum the other way in the process. The main issue I have with @SeeShell's idea is that, there is not enough energy in the cavity to create a significant amount of "massive" virtual particles. It would be difficult to even prove that a single electron-positron pair is being created at these energy levels, even at the surface of the antenna. What is in the QV is orders of magnitude too small to couple to, at these energies. IF it could work as Dr. White surmised, as a QV MHD thruster, the amount of current density and magnetic field strength required would be enormous. The QV energy density is concentrated above frequencies > 1022Hz. Frequency in the EM drive is many orders of magnitude below what the QV would need to couple to it.Todd
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............
Quote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............
.......
As frobnicat, deltaMass and others have much better said: the claims of overunity logically follow from the claims of thrust per watt, independent from speed. No known device produces constant thrust at any speed, being that the defining characteristic of the fabled "reactionless" drives.You say it produces 2 Newtons per watt? well, then when it exceeds 3 m/s it contains more kinetic energy than the energy you have spent pushing it. Anything faster and it's all gain for you.It would behave as a windmill, extracting energy from the wind. But in this case, without wind or any known energy source.
I am saying the thrust-to-power ratio can exceed 1/c by many orders of magnitude, yes. This is done by controlling the potential energy input at the small end of the waveguide and the exit velocity at the big end. This improves the thrust to power ratio significantly and does not violate any CoE or CoM. It's the standard rocket equation, with a non-linear term added onto it. It is getting a "boost" from the non-linear affect of a tapered waveguide, the same as one would get from falling in a gravitational field. I'm not saying it's gravity, I'm saying that there is a Newtonian potential energy gradient from the small end to the big end that pushes the energy out and pushes the waveguide forward. Right now, I'm not ready to discuss anymore about closed frustums. My goal was to show how to enhance a photon rocket to explain the 10,000x a photon rocket thrust to power ratios we're seeing. I think I have successfully, "theoretically" done this. I have not done it numerically yet and I'm working to finish up the paper, where I present 3 different types of thrust to power equations for a photon rocket. A photon rocket is not quite as easily understood as a flashlight. Todd
Quote from: cej on 06/26/2015 11:15 pm...1. Small vibrations (heat) that are external to the drive's frustum: like a Brownian motor. An inertial ratchet could become buoyant by inducing its own pressure gradient: particles would impart more momentum on the large end than the small end....Could you elaborate on this "buoyant" effect and provide some references?It is interesting because in my model of QG, a particle like a proton behaves like a "bag" of zero point fluctuations that act as the "driving" function for the harmonic oscillations. Radiation reaction acts as a damping function and the two are in equilibrium. Gravity arises as a broken symmetry. If you amplify the ZPF in the correct bandwidth, it will inflate the bag, making it buoyant in a gravitational field. It's very counter-intuitive that adding energy reduces the energy density, but that is exactly what happens, just like a hot air balloon. Gravity obeys PV~T. Adding energy to the ZPF inflates the oscillator by dx and the volume of the probability density increases by dx^3, lowering the total Energy density. This is "Exotic Matter", it is the opposite effect of gravitational time dilation and length contraction.Energy => E/sqrt(K)Length => L/sqrt(K)Where K is the refractive index of the vacuum in a gravitational field. If K < 1, Energy goes up, while Energy density goes down, which is "equivalent to" adding negative energy density to a positive energy density.Todd
...1. Small vibrations (heat) that are external to the drive's frustum: like a Brownian motor. An inertial ratchet could become buoyant by inducing its own pressure gradient: particles would impart more momentum on the large end than the small end....
Could you elaborate on this "buoyant" effect and provide some references?It is interesting because in my model of QG, a particle like a proton behaves like a "bag" of zero point fluctuations that act as the "driving" function for the harmonic oscillations. Radiation reaction acts as a damping function and the two are in equilibrium. Gravity arises as a broken symmetry. If you amplify the ZPF in the correct bandwidth, it will inflate the bag, making it buoyant in a gravitational field. It's very counter-intuitive that adding energy reduces the energy density, but that is exactly what happens, just like a hot air balloon. Gravity obeys PV~T. Adding energy to the ZPF inflates the oscillator by dx and the volume of the probability density increases by dx^3, lowering the total Energy density. This is "Exotic Matter", it is the opposite effect of gravitational time dilation and length contraction.Energy => E/sqrt(K)Length => L/sqrt(K)Where K is the refractive index of the vacuum in a gravitational field. If K < 1, Energy goes up, while Energy density goes down, which is "equivalent to" adding negative energy density to a positive energy density.Todd
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 09:55 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/07/2015 09:23 pmQuote from: demofsky on 07/07/2015 07:59 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............I hate the word virtual particles because they are not particles at all but disturbances in the fields of two passing real world particles, but the forces that are created bear characteristics of real particles. What got me going on this is reading Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's Q&A on virtual particles.http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ This is a good primer for anybody to read."Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.On virtual particles...."It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass."...And this is what I feel the evanescent waves are acting on. Not a real particle at all but just a group of wave functions created that can carry energy and momentum. If they can carry it they can be acted on.Still make sense? ShellNote: WaveTech, I really want to thank you for taking your time to reply to little old lady me. Hm. We may have a bit of a nomenclature issue here. I was comfortable with your use of virtual particle but I have to admit that when I see virtual particle I often think of QV since they use that term a lot - and strictly speaking one can argue they are exactly what you describe above.That said, do we invent a term that specifically refers to your use vs QV or do we expect everyone to understand the difference? One possibility is "EM virtual particle" or EMVP. Edit: And thank you for the link. That is an excellent and approachable discussion of virtual particles.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/07/2015 09:23 pmQuote from: demofsky on 07/07/2015 07:59 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............I hate the word virtual particles because they are not particles at all but disturbances in the fields of two passing real world particles, but the forces that are created bear characteristics of real particles. What got me going on this is reading Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's Q&A on virtual particles.http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ This is a good primer for anybody to read."Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.On virtual particles...."It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass."...And this is what I feel the evanescent waves are acting on. Not a real particle at all but just a group of wave functions created that can carry energy and momentum. If they can carry it they can be acted on.Still make sense? ShellNote: WaveTech, I really want to thank you for taking your time to reply to little old lady me.
Quote from: demofsky on 07/07/2015 07:59 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/07/2015 02:21 pmQuote from: CW on 07/07/2015 07:23 am.............
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/07/2015 12:51 pmDon't forget this is the 2nd peer reviewed EMDrive paper, the 1st being the Chinese paper as attached. [* 2013 NWPU 2013.pdf]Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/07/2015 05:00 pmthe various statements made there confirming for the 2nd time in a peer reviewed paper (Chinese peer review was 1st) the EMdrive generates Force as claimed.So far Dr. Juan Yang et al. published 5 papers about the EmDrive through peer-review: ZHU, Yu; YANG, Juan; MA, Nan (September 2008). "The Performance Analysis of Microwave Thrust Without Propellant Based On The Quantum Theory". Journal of Astronautics (in Chinese) 29 (5): 1612–1615.YANG, Juan; YANG, Le; ZHU, Yu; MA, Nan. "Applying Method of Reference 2 to Effectively Calculating Performance of Microwave Radiation Thruster". Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University 28 (6): 807–813. [Original in Chinese]Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Li, Peng-Fei; Wang, Yang; Wang, Yun-Min; Ma, Yan-Jie (2012). "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters". Acta Physica Sinica (in Chinese) (Chinese Physical Society) 61 (11). doi:10.7498/aps.61.110301Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Ma, Yan-Jie; Li, Peng-Fei; Yang, Le; Wang, Yang; He, Guo-Qiang (May 2013). "Prediction and experimental measurement of the electromagnetic thrust generated by a microwave thruster system". Chinese Physics B (IOP Publishing) 22 (5): 050301. doi:10.1088/1674-1056/22/5/050301Feng, S.; Juan, Y.; Ming-Jie, T. (September 2014). "Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system". Acta Physica Sinica (in Chinese) (Chinese Physical Society) 63 (15): 154103. doi:10.7498/aps.63.154103
Don't forget this is the 2nd peer reviewed EMDrive paper, the 1st being the Chinese paper as attached. [* 2013 NWPU 2013.pdf]
the various statements made there confirming for the 2nd time in a peer reviewed paper (Chinese peer review was 1st) the EMdrive generates Force as claimed.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/07/2015 05:43 pm...The extraordinary claims made in the 1st 3 pages, especially in Table 1 on page 1, which mean the mentioned EMDrives work as claimed and are now peer reviewed history. Accept them as factual and move on to new fields.As for your other physicists, I sure hope they have not dug themselves in so deep, they can't retract their views.Earlier in this thread you disputed the validity of any results from any em-drive that did not use Mr. Shawyer's rotational displacement method. I commented on that and have not heard a reply from you. So I will repeat: If all these other experiments are invalid and therefore cannot be considered replications of Mr. Shawyer's experiment one has to assume there are has been no replication. But now you are saying these other experiments somehow validate Mr. Shawyer's experiment. So which is it? Are all these experiments invalid because they don't use a rotational displacement apparatus or are they replications? I have not seen any data from any em-drive that would indicate that this claimed phenomenon exists. Peer reviewed or not this latest paper doesn't provide any data to support this claim. I don't fault the reviewers or Mr. Shawyer. Anyone is free to submit a paper that proposes some new, unproven hypothesis to the AIAA. I think where the reviewers might scrutinize the paper more closely would be if the paper included experiment data that was interpreted in an unscientific way. Since none of Mr. Shawyer's papers have include actual experimental data he is fine on that account.
...The extraordinary claims made in the 1st 3 pages, especially in Table 1 on page 1, which mean the mentioned EMDrives work as claimed and are now peer reviewed history. Accept them as factual and move on to new fields.As for your other physicists, I sure hope they have not dug themselves in so deep, they can't retract their views.
Three quick questions:1) Does WarpTech's non-linear gravity-like photon rocket theory/equation lose thrust efficiency as velocity increases in order to avoid the over-unity problem?...