Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 1473019 times)

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2960 on: 11/05/2014 02:24 pm »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

In fact Dr. White tried to do his doctoral thesis on his QVF model, which he had adopted as an engineer before ever going back to school for his PhD, and he was turned down on that thesis because there is no respect for QVF, ZPF and the like in academia for that nonsense.  There are reasons why people like Sean Carroll have been so uncharacteristically abusive of the idea--because it's a crackpot idea.  Virtual particles that cannot gravitate, cannot mediate any kind of momentum exchange.  This is by definition!  And yet, there are dozens of crackpot schemes on the web that all wave the ZPF or QVF wand over them and people just stop thinking.

« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 02:43 pm by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2961 on: 11/05/2014 02:42 pm »
I operate as if in order to prove something is "real" you only need to observe it. Be it directly or indirectly. You don't necessarily need to measure it.

What is measurable is limited by technology. Reality goes on being what it is, regardless of it is observable or measurable.
It's fine to operate with whatever criteria you like, but it's also important to note what is meant when physicists precise between "real" particles and "virtual" particles.  In that distinction, virtual particles cannot mediate momentum transfer because they do not have inertial nor gravitational mass, and because their lifetimes are hugely curtailed.  And this is in fact why Sean Carroll loses patience with the madness--because it is stipulating in spite of what the concept actually means.  Since "virtual" mean no mass, it is not going to be useful for gathering energy or generating momentum.  Hence it is the field of crackpots when they make these kinds of claims.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2962 on: 11/05/2014 02:49 pm »
Well I'm having doubts about the chirality of Polyethylene and Polytetrafluoroethylene. It seems that testing the chirality of polymers is a bit different than testing the chirality of non repeating molecules. I can tell you that testing for chirality in the structural formula of the monomers of PE and PTFE doesn't seem to hold to me; but the repeating units does appear to hold sometimes. Looking at ball models of the repeating structure of these materials, I see chirality. I need a sanity check here on the chirality of these polymers before I go and waste energy on something that isn't there.

I'm trying to tear apart my own "theory" here.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 02:53 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2963 on: 11/05/2014 02:52 pm »
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.

And Rodal and Momerathe were correct in calling me out for using the word energy instead of momentum. I get it. That imprecise language I used led to confusion between what was said (an unlimited source of energy, ergo quackery) and what was meant (an unlimited momentum well). Some of my own medicine actually. I complained a lot on here about precision of language. Oh well live and learn.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:19 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2964 on: 11/05/2014 03:02 pm »
Still bumbling around looking for interaction mechanisms..............

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0733v1.pdf

See: p.19, F. Microwave resonators
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:05 pm by Notsosureofit »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2965 on: 11/05/2014 03:21 pm »
Still bumbling around looking for interaction mechanisms..............

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0733v1.pdf

See: p.19, F. Microwave resonators

Well I was thinking it was vacuum polarization. I've been reading a lot about that and ways to work Compton scattering into the context of the QV. Also, way back I was looking at the diamagnetism of the QED vacuum as an exploit.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic521209.files/QFT-Schwartz.pdf
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:49 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2966 on: 11/05/2014 03:28 pm »
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.
I'm sorry but that's just not even close to true.  I've watched this debate for more than 10 years, and what I wrote is the truth.  The QVF model, and the ZPF theory before it both require virtual particles to transfer momentum and they have no mass to do this.  They are both for this reason, broken theories.  Momentum transfer and energy transfer using particles, certainly requires the particles have mass, and virtual particles do not--indeed they CANNOT or the universe would collapse under its own weight.

And again I would remind you, that the only evidence for these mistaken beliefs is Casimir Effect, which is easily explained with no reference to ZPF or QVF at all.  These are merely consistent with Casimir Force.  The fact of Casimir in no way requires ZPF nor QVF.  People who think this have been bamboozled, and whole books exist to give people this mistaken impression.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2967 on: 11/05/2014 03:35 pm »
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.
I'm sorry but that's just not even close to true.  I've watched this debate for more than 10 years, and what I wrote is the truth.  The QVF model, and the ZPF theory before it both require virtual particles to transfer momentum and they have no mass to do this.  They are both for this reason, broken theories.  Momentum transfer and energy transfer using particles, certainly requires the particles have mass, and virtual particles do not--indeed they CANNOT or the universe would collapse under its own weight.

And again I would remind you, that the only evidence for these mistaken beliefs is Casimir Effect, which is easily explained with no reference to ZPF or QVF at all.  These are merely consistent with Casimir Force.  The fact of Casimir in no way requires ZPF nor QVF.  People who think this have been bamboozled, and whole books exist to give people this mistaken impression.

Okay I'm going to be nice here and just say that something doesn't need rest mass to have momentum. Look at photons.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2968 on: 11/05/2014 04:06 pm »
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest".  Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind.  If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe.  The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough.  Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer.  This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories, that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset.

Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics.  They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough.  You don't need the particles for anything.  They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena.  the graviton is another example of this.  We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway.  That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying.  It lends itself to the emotional need to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 04:14 pm by Ron Stahl »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2969 on: 11/05/2014 04:13 pm »
Well all this reading about PT symmetry, polymer chirality and SED is mind numbing. Time to walk away from this for a while and let it sink in. It's beer time.

Edit:

They are truly chiral!

http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/states/polymers.html

Seriously I need to walk away from this for real this time.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 05:42 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2970 on: 11/05/2014 07:40 pm »
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.

Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.

Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.

Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.

Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)


Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)

Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)


Power Spectral Density (from FFT)  on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)

horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6

Peaks         Period (seconds)
3                 1/(3/(94.6))  = 31.53 s   Pulse period
5                 1/(5/(94.6))  = 18.92 s   4*Pendulum Period
7                 1/(7/(94.6))  = 13.51 s
10               1/(10/(94.6))  = 9.46 s   2*Pendulum Period
15               1/(15/(94.6))  = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle
18               1/(18/(94.6))  = 5.26 s
20               1/(20/(94.6))  = 4.73 s    Pendulum Period
25               1/(25/(94.6))  = 3.78 s
41               1/(41/(94.6))  = 2.31 s    1/2 Pendulum Period

Frobnicated Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous NASA report (Mean, Linear Least Squares Fit and Quadratic Least Squares Fit)


Autocorrelation of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue), by Linear LS (Red) and by Quadratic LS (Green)


Power Spectral Density of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15  (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Quadratic LS (Red)

horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*98

Peaks         Period (seconds)
3                 1/(3/(98))  =  32.67 s   Pulse period
5                 1/(5/(98))  =  19.60 s   4*Pendulum Period
7                 1/(7/(98))  =  14..00 s
12               1/(13/(98))  =  7.54 s 
16               1/(16/(98))  =  6.13 s  <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle
22               1/(22/(98))  =  4.45 s   Pendulum Period
29               1/(29/(98))  =  3.38 s   
34               1/(34/(98))  =  2.88 s
36               1/(36/(98))  =  2.72 s   
40               1/(40/(98))  =  2.45 s   
42               1/(42/(98))  =  2.33 s    1/2 Pendulum Period

The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.

It is evident that:

1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum.  The half-period is also the most evident pattern of Fig. 19 to my eyes.

2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum

3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)

4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 09:02 pm by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2971 on: 11/05/2014 07:51 pm »
All I ever wanted to know about Maxwell's equations, and more, including evanescent waves.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap09.pdf

Evanescent fields/waves are more versatile than simply providing power coupling and quantum tunneling ... I guess.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2972 on: 11/05/2014 07:55 pm »
All I ever wanted to know about Maxwell's equations, and more, including evanescent waves.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap09.pdf

Evanescent fields/waves are more versatile than simply providing power coupling and quantum tunneling ... I guess.
That's part of MIT's Electrical Engineering undergraduate course 6.013, for the other chapters and video clips also see this:  http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 07:59 pm by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2973 on: 11/05/2014 08:30 pm »

The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.

It is evident that:

1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum.  The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.

2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum

3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)

4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.

Hi there %)

Rodal, you should be aware and cautious of the fact that those data points are a linear piecewise reconstruction by hand from a badly compressed picture of a low definition display. While I was trying to fit as best as I could without introducing bias, I put vertex at the "visually central" position only where it made sense : it means that there is not a lot of points on a given "wave". After correction for perspective (bilinear interpolation, should be pretty good at restoring "flat" upright geometry) the data points at each .1s were obtained from this piecewise linear curve by averaging a sampling (at .01s resolution) .1s on left and right of said data point, so there is a slight smoothing (low pass filtering) going on at this stage. Even with this smoothing around, a lot of consecutive data points are given by the same segment, and I guess we have shapes more triangular than they should (triangle crests instead of sinusoidal bumps) : this surely introduces some harmonics and might explain the magnitude of this half period (twice freq.) relative to the magnitude of the central period of 4.65 (or so).

I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2974 on: 11/05/2014 09:00 pm »

The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.

It is evident that:

1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum.  The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.

2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum

3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)

4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.

Hi there %)

Rodal, you should be aware and cautious of the fact that those data points are a linear piecewise reconstruction by hand from a badly compressed picture of a low definition display. While I was trying to fit as best as I could without introducing bias, I put vertex at the "visually central" position only where it made sense : it means that there is not a lot of points on a given "wave". After correction for perspective (bilinear interpolation, should be pretty good at restoring "flat" upright geometry) the data points at each .1s were obtained from this piecewise linear curve by averaging a sampling (at .01s resolution) .1s on left and right of said data point, so there is a slight smoothing (low pass filtering) going on at this stage. Even with this smoothing around, a lot of consecutive data points are given by the same segment, and I guess we have shapes more triangular than they should (triangle crests instead of sinusoidal bumps) : this surely introduces some harmonics and might explain the magnitude of this half period (twice freq.) relative to the magnitude of the central period of 4.65 (or so).

I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.

Hi there,

I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern.  I meant nothing else.  Nothing about seconds.  Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance.



I would appreciate to know if you questioned calling the Eagleworks pendulum "inverted", for curiosity or because you object to that description  and if so what would you like to call it and why. ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1282051#msg1282051 )

No vocabulary flame please just trying to understand if I missed or failed to notice something with the Eagleworks pendulum



Concerning why the frequency corresponding to the total period has relatively low power, and the 1/2 period has much higher power I think it is due to the high damping value that noticeably dampens the response such that when the power is turned on the first peak (dynamic magnification) has greater amplitude excursion than the second excursion.  Actually the subsequent peaks are much less well-defined and appear muddled in the picture.

« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 09:37 pm by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2975 on: 11/05/2014 10:31 pm »
I would appreciate to know if you questioned calling the Eagleworks pendulum "inverted", for curiosity or because you object to that description  and if so what would you like to call it and why. ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1282051#msg1282051 )

No vocabulary flame please just trying to understand if I missed or failed to notice something with the Eagleworks pendulum

It's just that I didn't feel my remark/question deserved so much energy (heat wave!) as your answer used, so I was a bit embarrassed at answering (and had not much time to laboriously knead my words). I'm already under surveillance at my work for too much verbose production (not a surprise).

It was a matter of connotation, as I worked (time ago, also too much verbose) on emergent adaptive control of inverted pendulum, the unstable one with active stabilisation (actuator...) so is for me inverted => mass above pivot & unstable equilibrium. I am not aware of any application for measurement purposes of such unstable equilibrium system. There are measurement application for near unstable systems where a centre of mass is not far from being above pivot, but still below so that it's not really inverted and not unstable, just very sensitive, and with long period, like Lehman seismometer (from this site):


Also we have this very fine device (by nineteenth century standards) from von Rebeur Paschwitz

that's called an horizontal pendulum (from this site) on the same principle that a very slightly tilted almost vertical axis will allow for a weak restoring force toward equilibrium. This is not exactly fresh news and may be outdated.

For the kind of balance used at eaglework I would go onto something of the line of "horizontal spring pendulum" (only in better English). Or why not just stick with "torsion pendulum" or "torsional pendulum" as the (ideal) movement is kept in an horizontal plane and the force restoring to (stable) equilibrium is given by a spring constant ? Why need "inverted" ? Was the question.

Now, the funny thing is that, with all that stuff (rf amp. and EMthruster) above the beam of the balance, we are indeed in an "inverted" situation from this point of view, that is for the rotation around the x axis (and maybe y?) centre of mass is above "pivots". In this axis, this should be rather stiff with the two flexure bearings mounted apart, but I wonder how far we are from unstability.

So it all boils down to feelings of the word  inverted => centre_of_mass_above_pivot => unstable. The later implication being wrong if restoring force stiff enough, so maybe it no longer "deserve" the qualifier of "inverted". Just a matter of wordings, not of concepts, I guess we agree on the functioning and stability (or lack thereof) of the balance at hand.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 10:44 pm by frobnicat »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2976 on: 11/05/2014 10:57 pm »
Quote from: Rodal
Quote from: frobnicat
.../...
I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.

I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern.  I meant nothing else.  Nothing about seconds.  Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance.
.../...

Maybe again a problem of wording, and eye maybe. What my eyes see as pattern is "something that is similar when shifted laterally in position by some amount". And the translation needed to put the crest on the next crest and the dip on the next dip is, well, a full period of about 4.6 s, not 2.3s ? Do I have a real problem of translation here (quite possible) ?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2977 on: 11/05/2014 11:40 pm »
Quote from: Rodal
Quote from: frobnicat
.../...
I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.

I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern.  I meant nothing else.  Nothing about seconds.  Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance.
.../...

Maybe again a problem of wording, and eye maybe. What my eyes see as pattern is "something that is similar when shifted laterally in position by some amount". And the translation needed to put the crest on the next crest and the dip on the next dip is, well, a full period of about 4.6 s, not 2.3s ? Do I have a real problem of translation here (quite possible) ?

Well, we all have different minds, and experience.  When looking at a strongly damped sinusoid my mind sees a pattern of different 1/2 periods, each having a different amplitude. 

I changed my wording to "The half-period is also the most evident pattern of Fig. 19 to my eyes."
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 11:41 pm by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2978 on: 11/05/2014 11:40 pm »
I have finished tracing the cavity RF wave through to momentum of evanescent waves. It may or may not fly as the origination of the measured force due to a few things.

1. Need to either reconcile the geometry with the force or discover that evanescent waves can be created by incident EM waves at less than the critical angle.

2. Need to discover that evanescent waves can be created through the thickness of the copper boundary.

I sketched together a Microsoft Word paper which is attached. Be warned, the math in the references is heavy.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2979 on: 11/06/2014 12:39 pm »
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest".  Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind.  Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?

Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics.  Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena.  the graviton is another example of this.  We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."



Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. This is the last time I ftt. I value your inputs but when you go on these anti QV rants, it is just too much. My "word by word" comments are in blue. My thoughts are that if someone has issue with a theory that's fine. But they should have a constructive rebuttal too. What is your alternate theory? Do you have a personal stake in something else that makes you just not like anything to do with EMdrive? Is it because it isn't Woodward's theory? What gives? Should we just not give EMdrive any attention whatsoever?

My apologies for any mistakes I may have made in my statements or vocabulary.  :)

Very respectfully,
Mulletron

« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 12:46 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1