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
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/22/2016 05:56 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 04:57 pmQuote from: giulioprisco on 11/22/2016 03:09 pmI 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 Propulsionhttps://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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 04:57 pmQuote from: giulioprisco on 11/22/2016 03:09 pmI 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 Propulsionhttps://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.
Quote from: giulioprisco on 11/22/2016 03:09 pmI 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 Propulsionhttps://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 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 Propulsionhttps://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Quote from: M.LeBel on 11/22/2016 10:56 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 05:33 pmEW 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 05:33 pmEW 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 ...
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.
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".
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.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/23/2016 01:28 amHere'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?
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.
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/22/2016 05:46 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 04:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 11/22/2016 02:25 pmSimple 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
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/22/2016 04:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 11/22/2016 02:25 pmSimple 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....
Quote from: Rodal on 11/22/2016 02:25 pmSimple 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.
Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
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.
Quote from: giulioprisco on 11/22/2016 03:09 pmI 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 Propulsionhttps://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.)
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.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/22/2016 04:48 pmQuote from: giulioprisco on 11/22/2016 03:09 pmI 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 Propulsionhttps://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?
Quote from: Flyby on 11/22/2016 10:50 pm......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
......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 ?
...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? ...Simple feedback or energy dissipation, by themselves, do not make a copper cavity a complex system...
Simple question to the ForumIf 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.